Port State Control

A guide for Members

 CONTENTS

1 Introduction

The Growing Importance of Port State Control

What is Port State Control?

Origins

Regional Development of Port State Control

This Manual

4 International Developments – ISM, STCW and Resolution A787 (19)

6 Geographical Overview of Regional Development in Port State Control

7 Outline of each Principal Regional Agreement on Port State Control

8 Paris Memorandum of Understanding (Paris MOU)

16 Asia-Pacific Memorandum of Understanding (Tokyo MOU)

22 Latin American Agreement (Acuerdo de Viña del Mar)

28 Port State Control and the USA

39 Acknowledgements and Bibliography

Carrie Greenaway, the author of this

guide, studied law and lived in the Far East

for several years. On returning to the UK,

she began work in the London Insurance

Market and has worked for members of

both the broking and underwriting

communities. She specialises in marine

liabilities and related insurances.

Internet: carrie.greenaway@catlin.co.uk

Published by Thomas Miller & Co Ltd.

© Copyright Thomas Miller & Co Ltd 1998

PORT STATE CONTROL
INTRODUCTION

THE GROWING IMPORTANCE OF PORT STATE CONTROL

Port State Control is the process by which a nation exercises authority over foreign ships when

those ships are in waters subject to its jurisdiction. The right to do this is derived from both

domestic and international law. A nation may enact its own laws, imposing requirements on

foreign ships trading in its waters, and nations which are party to certain international conventions

are empowered to verify that ships of other nations operating in their waters comply with the

obligations set out in those conventions.

The stated purpose of Port State Control in its various forms is to identify and eliminate ships

which do not comply with internationally accepted standards as well as the domestic regulations

of the state concerned. When ships are not in substantial compliance, the relevant agency of the

inspecting state may impose controls to ensure that they are brought into compliance.

Recently, IMO adopted a resolution providing procedures for the uniform exercise of Port State

Control, and regional agreements have been adopted by individual countries within Europe,

the European Union, and various East Asian and Pacific nations. A number of North African

Mediterranean nations have recently expressed their intention to set up a separate regional

agreement in their own area of the world. In addition, some countries such as the United States of

America have adopted a unilateral approach to the subject, which nevertheless has the same aims.

Shipowners and operators should take measures to reduce the likelihood that their ships will

be subjected to intervention or detention, bearing in mind that increasingly efficient databases

will enable the maritime authorities who participate in the growing range of international

agreements, memoranda and conventions to exchange information. Being inspected by one state

and given a clean bill of health will not necessarily prevent further inspections being made by

another maritime authority – and, as information is exchanged between various organisations, non-

compliant ships will find it increasingly difficult to continue operations.

1
PORT STATE CONTROL
INTRODUCTION

WHAT IS PORT STATE CONTROL? of these developments are as much matters of perception as

of reality, but insofar as their impact on the viability of the

Port State Control (PSC) is a method of checking the successful
international maritime regime is appreciable, the effect of
enforcement of the provisions of various international
these perceptions should not be underestimated. They are:
conventions covering safety, working conditions and pollution

prevention on merchant ships. Under international law the INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

shipowner has prime responsibility for ensuring compliance, While there is a growing web of international regulations,

with much of the work involved being carried out by the state its development is dependent upon consensus and

whose flag the ship flies. However, not all flag states are able agreement. Consequently, it has sometimes been necessary

to check their ships on a continuous basis when they are away to proceed at the pace of the slowest, which leads to delay

from their own ports, so PSC provides a back-up for monitoring in implementation. However, it is acknowledged that IMO

the implementation of international and domestic shipping has achieved impressive and much speedier results in

regulations. Whilst Port State Control as a concept is not new, recent years.

the increasing number of inspections and the coordination and

THE FLAG STATES
exchange of data generated from them is a significant
Some flag states are seen as not fulfilling their function of
development, as is the stated intention of governments and
ensuring that the owner complies with his obligations. In
maritime authorities who see it as an effective means of
particular, the growth of registers which have no capability
monitoring and implementing international conventions.
and even less intention of monitoring compliance has led to

considerable criticism.
ORIGINS

THE CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES

It is the owner who is ultimately responsible for all compliance
The work of the classification societies has been seen as too
with international and national obligations but it is incumbent
easily undermined, although in recent years IACS have done
upon any state which allows the registration of ships under
much to improve both perception and reality in this area.
its flag effectively to exercise jurisdiction and control in

administrative, technical and social matters. A flag state is All of this has led to the burgeoning development in Port

required to take such measures as are necessary to ensure State Control, not as an alternative to “Flag State Control” but

safety at sea with regard to construction, maintenance and as an additional means of compelling owners to comply with

seaworthiness, manning, labour conditions, crew, training and international regulations.

prevention of collisions of ships flying its flag.

Specifically, ART 94 of UNCLOS (United Nations REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF PORT STATE CONTROL

Convention on the Law of the Sea) imposes a duty upon flag

Port State Control as a concept is developing worldwide as a
states to take any steps which may be necessary to secure
means of dealing with the problem of substandard shipping.
compliance with generally accepted international regulations,
However, it is important that its development is not viewed in
procedures and practices. This obligation is repeated at Article
isolation, as it remains one of a series of positive steps which
27 in relation to oil pollution. This is achieved in the main
are being taken to ensure that the shipowner trades his ships
by the flag state issuing safety certificates often via the
in a safe and environmentally responsible manner.
classification societies indicating compliance with the principal
The first regional Port State Control agreement, covering
international conventions. It is these certificates, together with
Europe and the North Atlantic, was signed in 1982 and is
related manning, crew and environmental requirements, which
known as the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (Paris
form the basis of Port State Control.
MOU). The Latin American Agreement (Acuerdo de Viña del
Historically one of a ship’s most important attributes is the
Mar) was signed in 1992; the Asia Pacific Memorandum of
flag which it flies and trades under, but recent developments
Understanding (Tokyo MOU) was signed in 1993.
have highlighted the weaknesses inherent in this system. Some

2
The Caribbean MOU and the Mediterranean MOU are in the operational and management purposes on all developments

early states of implementation, the latter being signed in July around the world on what is set to be an increasingly

1997. The Port State Control Committee of the Caribbean important subject.

MOU, the body charged with implementing the administrative Each chapter in this Manual has been written as an integral

framework necessary to give effect to the agreement, is document which may be read separately from the rest, so that

currently working on the programme needed to collate those who trade continuously in one area of the world need

information, establish a database and technical co-operation only read the chapter which deals with that particular area.

programme, as well as train the surveyors and inspectors of

the countries involved. The Mediterranean MOU allows for an

interim establishment period of two years and the first session

of its Port State Control Committee has been scheduled for the

end of February 1998.

Earlier this year the Indian Government announced plans to

lead a scheme for the Indian Ocean area.

It would appear that the accepted view is that Port State

Control works most effectively if implemented on a regional

basis. However, there are examples of nations that are not

signatories to a regional agreement but who nevertheless

pursue the same aims. For example, the USA exercises its Port

State Control authority through the US Coast Guard’s long-

standing foreign ship boarding programme, which is now

referred to as the Port State Control Programme.

THIS MANUAL

This is one of two companion manuals specially prepared for

UK Club Members to guide ship operators, managers and

ships’ officers through the intricacies of the various PSC regimes.

This volume serves to highlight and explain the key provisions

of the agreements in some detail, whilst the other (shorter)

volume sets out the principal features of each agreement in

outline form and is suited to shipboard use.

This publication covers each of the three “mature” regional

agreements – the Paris MOU, the Tokyo MOU and the Latin

American Agreement – and, given the importance of the USA

as a trading nation and that it often leads the world by

example – an outline of the key provisions of the Port State

Control programme implemented by the US Coast Guard.

It is clear that Port State Control will continue to be

strengthened in existing areas and expanded into new ones.

Consequently we intend to update this publication as and when

necessary by providing supplements so that our Members have

available to hand the latest information available for both

3
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS
ISM, STCW AND RESOLUTION A787 (19)

THE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CODE FOR Port State Control will be undertaken to verify compliance with

THE SAFE OPERATION OF SHIPS AND FOR the certification requirements under the ISM Code.

POLLUTION PREVENTION (“THE ISM CODE”) Maritime authorities around the world are defining and

refining their approach, and some take a more aggressive

Important developments have recently taken place in several
stance than others. For example, the secretariat of the
international fora which will have a bearing on the operation
European Memorandum of Understanding (the Paris MOU), a
and implementation of Port State Control.
regional agreement which encompasses the majority of
Under the ISM Code, all passenger ships, oil tankers,
European maritime authorities, as well as Canada and the
chemical carriers, gas tankers, bulk carriers and high speed
Russian Federation, has stated that it is currently preparing a
cargo craft of 500gt and above will have to be certified by 1st
campaign on inspection of ships and crews under the ISM Code.
July 1998. For other cargo ships and mobile offshore drilling
In the first instance, it can be anticipated that ships which have
units of 500gt and above, enforcement will take effect on 1st
not started their certification process will be issued with a letter
July 2002.
of warning, and after 1st July 1998 such ships will be detained
The Code provides for a universal standard of safety and
for reasons of non-conformity. Such a detention could be lifted
environmental protection which is subject to a formal “audit”
for a single voyage if no other deficiencies are found, but the
procedure which must be conducted by qualified auditors in
ship will be refused entry in the same port thereafter, (stated
accordance with internationally agreed criteria.
in the Annual Report 1996, of the Paris MOU).
Under the ISM Code and the Safety Management System a
In addition, the European Union is taking an interest and has
safety and environmental protection policy must be formulated
made repeated statements to the effect that it intends to ensure
and specific written procedures have to be available aboard
that the ISM Code effective 1st July 1998 will be enforced
each ship. Non-comformity and accident reporting procedures
by means of enhanced Port State Control inspections. The
have to be established and management review arrangements
European Commission has already warned that if Port State
developed. Full identification details of the ship’s operator
Control inspections and detentions fail to keep out substandard
must be communicated to the flag state.
ships from its jurisdiction then the owners and charterers of
The principal areas in which the ISM Code sets out to apply
substandard ships could face severe financial penalties. In his
standards are:
address to delegates at the Norshipping conference in June

● Operating ships and transporting cargo safely and efficiently. 1997, Mr Roberto Salvarani of the Marine Safety Agency of

the European Union said shipping had to accept tough policing

● Conserving and protecting the environment.
of existing regulations designed to stamp out what he termed

● Avoiding injuries to personnel and loss of life. the culture of evasion.

● Complying with statutory and rules and requirements, as “This is to ensure that quality pays and that the evasion culture

set out in the applicable International Conventions. does not, This means ensuring a real economic return, at least

in the longer term, on operating quality shipping. The role of

● Continuous development of skills and systems related to
governments, therefore – to use the example of football – is to
safe operation and pollution prevention.
give a red card to the bad players. Then and only then will a

● Preparation of effective emergency response plans. price be given to quality. If we can succeed in this we will have

laid the foundations for industrial self-regulation.”

It is readily apparent from the foregoing that the ISM Code

and the ever increasing and coordinated approach to In 1998 inspections in Europe are expected to tighten, first with

inspections known generically as Port State Control address intense scrutiny of all ISM certificates after the 1st July deadline,

the same concerns. Since the ISM Code is regarded by focusing on bulk carriers later in the year. Task forces are being

maritime authorities as an important additional tool in formed to streamline the operation and implementation of

improving the safety consciousness of both shore based and Port State Control checks, each with a particular brief.

ship based management, it is to be anticipated that stringent

4
The Asia Pacific Memorandum on Port State Control (the Tokyo “Following publication of the list, certificates issued by

MOU) encompasses a wide geographical area. They take their countries not included in the list will not be accepted as prima

lead from the Paris group, adopting measures which have been facia evidence that the holders have been trained and meet the

developed by the Paris MOU. standards of competency required by the convention.”

The USA will be particularly vigilant, having intimated

The consequence of this will be that ships on which such
already that ships which are not in full compliance by July
seafarers are sailing may suffer costly delays in ports while
1998 will not be permitted to enter US ports. The US Coast
inspectors verify that they are competent to safely man the
Guard has stated that they intend to strictly enforce the ISM
ships, and this may in turn lead to an unwillingness by foreign
Code requirements as part of their Port State Control
shipowners to employ such seafarers.
programme. From January 1998, the US Coast Guard is
These amendments will facilitate the role of the Port State
issuing letters to the masters of foreign ships who visit a US
Control inspector as well as provide greater transparency in
port without ISM Code certification. As of 1st July 1998, for
decision making, which is helpful because an oft cited criticism
those ships for which the ISM Code is applicable, the US Coast
of port inspections is that decisions sometimes appear to be
Guard will deny port entry to any ship without it. If a ship
made in an arbitrary and/or inconsistent manner. The actual or
without the required ISM Code certification is found in a US
perceived inconsistency between the decisions of different
port, it will be detained, cargo operations restricted and be
inspectors is amplified when the different jurisdictions and
subject to a civil penalty action.
practices appertaining to the hundreds of different maritime

authorities are taken into account.

STANDARDS OF TRAINING, CERTIFICATION AND

WATCHKEEPING CONVENTION – 1995 AMENDMENTS

RESOLUTION A787 (19)

Of all the recent developments the adoption in 1995 of

At the 19th Assembly of IMO in November 1995, the
extensive amendments to the STCW Convention is perhaps
amalgamated resolution (A.787(19)) relating to Port State
the most significant.
inspection procedures was adopted. The amalgamated
The amendments, which came into force on 1st February
resolution includes all substantive provisions of A.466 (XII) as
1997, add considerably to the role of Port State Control.
amended, A.542 (13), A.597 (15), MEPC.26 (23) and A.742
Prior to the 1995 amendments to the convention, Port State
(18) and contains comprehensive guidance for the detention of
inspections were based upon an interconnecting web of non-
ships, the qualification and training requirements of inspectors
mandatory provisions which were at times a challenge to
and procedural guidelines covering ship safety, pollution
enforce. However, the revised STCW, especially Regulation 4
prevention and manning requirements. Consequently this
in the new chapter XI, strengthens the legal basis for Port State
resolution will play an increasingly important part in the
inspections and contains very precise control procedures,
implementation of Port State Control.
including specification of clear grounds for believing that

appropriate standards are not being maintained.

In addition, the revisions made gives IMO, for the first time,

the ability and responsibility to verify the capability of training

institutions. It will issue a list of countries which are found to

be conducting their maritime training and certification in

accordance with the new requirements.

Those who are compliant will be put on a “White List”. The

implications for countries which do not appear on the “White List”

have been commented upon by the Secretary-General of IMO.

5
 {,
y
@
Â,
‚À
B€
AA
@@

€€
ÁÁ
ÀÀ



,,
zz
B‚Â{yy
EFƆFG‡Ç€€€€
DD
HCC
…†GG
„„
ˆƒƒ
ÅƇ‡
ÄÄ
ÈÃÃ
ÇÇ


~
}}
PORT STATE CONTROL

HAWAII
C
z
Á

A


y
À
€
@
,
||
€€BB
AAA
‚‚

ÂÂ
ÁÁÁ





{{
zzz
{
Â
‚
B

ˆˆ@@
€€
ÀÀ
,,
yy
z
Á

A


y
À
€
@
,
EE||
DDD
HH
GGG
……
„„„
‡‡‡
ÅÅ
ÄÄÄ
ÈÈ
ÇÇÇ




~~
}}}

A

MEXICO

FCCƆFG‡Ç€D„Ä}CƒÃ|
†ƒƒ
ÆÃÃ

GEOGRAPHICAL OVERVIEW OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENTS IN PORT STATE CONTROL (as discussed in the manual)

N A

U S A
D A

CUBA
CAYMAN IS.
JAMAICA
BAHAMAS
TURKS & CAICOS IS.
PUERTO RICA
VIRGIN IS. (US)
ANGUILLA BRITISH VIRGIN IS.
ICELAND

UNITED KINGDOM

IRELAND

PORTUGAL SPAIN
NORWAY

NETH.
BEL.

FRANCE
SWEDEN

DENMARK

ITALY
POLAND
GERMANY
FINLAND

CROATIA

GREECE
R U S S I A N F E D E

C
R

H
A

I
T I

N
O

THAILAND
N

REPUBLIC OF KOREA

HONG KONG
JAPAN

PHILIPPINES
MONSERRAT ANTIGUA & BARBUDA NORTHERN MARIANA
ARUBA DOMINICA ISLANDS
BARBADOS VIETNAM
NETHERLANDS ANTILLES GRENADA
TRINIDAD & TOBAGO GUAM
PANAMA VENEZUELA
GUYANA
SURINAM MALAYSIA
COLOMBIA
SINGAPORE
PAPUA
ECUADOR NEW
INDONESIA GUINEA
SOLOMAN
ISLANDS

B R A Z I L AMERICAN
PERU SAMOA
VANUATU

FIJI

A U S T R A L I A
CHILE

URUGUAY

NEW
ARGENTINA
ZEALAND

FULL PARTICIPATING MEMBERS OF MOU

PARIS MOU TOKYO MOU ACUERDO DE CARIBBEAN MOU USA AND TERRITORIES
Canada* Australia VIÑA DEL MAR Antigua & Barbuda
Belgium Canada* Argentina Aruba
Croatia China, including Hong Kong Brazil Bahamas
Special Administrative Region
Denmark Chile Barbados
Fiji
Finland Cuba Cayman Islands
Indonesia
France Colombia Grenada
Japan
Germany Ecuador Jamaica
Republic of Korea
Greece Mexico Trinidad & Tobago
Malaysia
Ireland Panama
New Zealand
Italy Peru
Papua New Guinea
Netherlands Uruguay
Philippines
Norway Venezuela
Russian Federation*
Poland
Singapore
Portugal
Thailand
Russian Federation*
Vanuatu
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom

*Canada and the Russian Federation adhere to both the Paris MOU and the Tokyo Mou.

SIGNED AUTHORITIES – NOT YET FULL PARTICIPATING MEMBERS OF MOU

PARIS MOU TOKYO MOU ACUERDO DE CARIBBEAN MOU

Iceland Solomon Islands VIÑA DEL MAR Anguilla
Vietnam - Dominica
Guyana
British Virgin Islands
Monserrat
Netherlands Antilles
Surinam
Turks & Caicos Islands

6
PORT STATE CONTROL
OUTLINE OF EACH PRINCIPAL REGIONAL AGREEMENT ON PORT STATE CONTROL
PARIS MOU
AUTHORITIES WHICH ADHERE Canada, Belgium, Croatia,
TO THE MOU Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy,
Netherlands, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Russian Federation,
Spain, Sweden, UK
AUTHORITIES WHICH HAVE Iceland
SIGNED BUT NOT YET BECOME
FULL PARTICIPATING MEMBERS
OBSERVER AUTHORITY - United States (14th District
OBSERVER ORGANISATION IMO, ILO
OFFICIAL LANGUAGE English, French
SIGNED 26 January 1982
EFFECTIVE DATE 1 July 1982
GOVERNING BODY Port State Control Committee
SECRETARIAT Provided by the Netherlands
Ministry of Transport and
Public Works The Hague
DATABASE CENTRE Centre Administratif des
Affaires Maritimes (CAAM)
(St. Malo, France)
ADDRESS OF SECRETARIAT Paris MOU Secretariat
PO Box 2094
2500 Ex Den Haag
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 70 351 1508
Fax: +31 70 351 1599
Website: http://www.parismou.org
The US Port State Control programme is not susceptible to the same tabular treatment and is covered on pages 28 to 38.
TOKYO MOU
Australia, Canada, China, Fiji,
Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan,
Republic of Korea, Malaysia,
New Zealand, Papua New Guinea,
Philippines, Russian Federation,
Singapore, Thailand, Vanuatu
Solomon Islands,
Vietnam
USCG)
IMO, ILO, ESCAP
English
1 December 1993
1 April 1994
Port State Control Committee
Tokyo MOU Secretariat (Tokyo)
Asia-Pacific Computerised
Information System
(APCIS)(Ottawa, Canada)
Tokyo (MOU) Secretariat
Toneoecho Annex Bld,
Toranoman Minato-ku
6th Floor, 3-8-26
Tokyo 105, Japan
Tel: +81 3 3433 0621
Fax: +81 3 3433 0624
Website: http://www./iijnet.or.
jp/toymou
ACUERDO DE VIÑA
DEL MAR
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Cuba,
Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico,
Panama, Peru, Uruguay,
Venezuela
- Anguilla, Monserrat,
IMO, ROCRAM
Spanish, Portuguese
5 November 1992
- -
Committee of the Viña del
Mar Agreement
Provided by Prefectua Naval
Argentina (Buenos Aires)
Centre de Informacion del
Acuerdo Latinamericano (CIALA)
(Buenos Aires, Argentina)
Secretariat del Acuerdo
Prefectura Naval
Argentina
Tel: +541 318 7433/7647
Fax: +541 318 7847/314 0317
Website: http://www.sudnet.com.
ar/ciala
CARIBBEAN MOU
Antigua & Baruda, Aruba,
Bahamas, Barbados, Caymen
Islands, Grenada, Jamaica,
Trinidad & Tobago
Anguilla, Dominica, Guyana,
British Virgin Islands,
Monserrat, Netherland Antilles,
Surinam, Turks & Caicos Islands
Turks & Caicos Islands
Paris MOU, Tokyo MOU, Viña
del Mar, Canada, USA,
Netherlands, CARCOM,
Secretariate, ILO, IMO, IACS
English
9 February 1996
Caribbean Port State Control
Committee
(Anticipated) Barbados
Asia-Pacific Computerised
Information System
(APCIS)(Ottawa, Canada)
7
PARIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
(PARIS MOU)

ICELAND
SWEDEN
NORWAY FINLAND
R U S S I A N F E D E R A T I O N

C A N A D A UNITED KINGDOM DENMARK

NETH.
IRELAND POLAND
BEL. GERMANY

FRANCE CROATIA

PORTUGAL SPAIN ITALY

GREECE

The information contained in the following section provides an OUTLINE STRUCTURE

outline of Port State Control procedures under the Paris

The executive body of the Paris MOU is the Port State Control
Memorandum of Understanding, the “Paris MOU”.
Committee. This is composed of the representatives of the 18

participating maritime authorities and meets once a year, or at

MEMBER STATES
shorter intervals if necessary.

The current member states of the Paris MOU region are: Representatives of the European Commission, the

International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and the International

Belgium Netherlands
Labour Organisation (ILO) participate as observers in the
Canada Norway
meetings of the Port State Control Committee, as do
Croatia Poland
representatives of co-operating maritime authorities and other
Denmark Portugal
regional agreements (eg., the Tokyo MOU).
Finland Russian Federation

France Spain
BASIC PRINCIPLES
Germany Sweden

Greece United Kingdom of Great The Paris MOU maintain that the prime responsibility for

Ireland Britain & Northern Ireland compliance with the requirements laid down in the

Italy international maritime conventions lies with the

shipowner/operator and the responsibility for ensuring such

In 1996 the Maritime Authority of Iceland was granted the
compliance remains with the flag state. Port State Control is
status of “Co-operating Maritime Authority” and it is
seen as a safety net, as the language of the recitals indicates:
anticipated that this status should allow Iceland to achieve

access as a full member of the Paris MOU in due course. “Mindful that the principal responsibility for the effective

application of standards laid down in international instruments

rests upon the authorities of the state whose flag a ship is

entitled to fly”, but “recognising nevertheless that effective

8
action by port states is required to prevent the operation of sub- Directive is enshrined in the Memorandum, and whilst the

standard ships...” but “convinced of the necessity for these... Directive provisions are not obligatory to non EU members, the

of an improved and harmonised system of Port State Control”. fact that they too have to fulfil these obligations if they are to

conform to the Paris MOU means that there is in effect a

THE CONVENTIONS significant raising of inspection standards within all of those

countries who are participating members of the Paris MOU.

Internationally accepted conventions are monitored during
Consequently, the scope and application of Port State
Port State Control inspections. These conventions are called
Control is extended by the provision of EC Directive 95/21/EC.
‘relevant’ instruments in the Memorandum and are:
For example, the Directive:

● International Convention on Load Lines 1966, as amended,

i. gives Member States the power to inspect and detain
and its 1988 Protocol, (LOADLINES 66/88)
ships anchored off a port or an offshore installation,

● International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea although most inspections continue to be carried out on

(SOLAS), 1974, its Protocol of 1978, as amended, and the ships alongside. It requires that, as a minimum, the

Protocol of 1988, (SOLAS 74/78/88) inspector checks all relevant certificates and documents

and satisfies himself as to the overall condition of the ship

● International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
including the engine room and crew accommodation.
from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978, as

amended (MARPOL 73/78) ii. permits the targeting of certain categories of ship. The

Paris MOU now includes general ship selection criteria which

● International Convention on Standards of Training,
enable the inspectors to choose and review certain ships
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers 1978, as
with a view to “priority inspection” (see later comments).
amended (STCW 78)

● Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing INSPECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE REGION

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Collisions at Sea 1972, as amended (COLREG 72)
NUMBER OF SHIPS INSPECTED 9842 10101 10455 11252 10694 10563 10256

● International Convention on Tonnage Measurements of NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS 13955 14379 14783 17294 16964 16381 16070

Ships 1969 (TONNAGE 1969) Source: Annual Report and Accounts, the Paris Memorandum of Understanding 1996

● Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 iii. provides that where there are “clear grounds” for a

(ILO Convention 147) detailed inspection of some ships, the Authorities must

ensure that an “expanded inspection” is carried out, (see

Since its inception date, the Paris MOU has been amended
later comments).
several times to accommodate new safety and marine

environmental requirements stemming from the IMO, as well The Paris MOU has recently established an Advisory Board

as other important developments such as the EC Directive which, among other things, co-ordinates the legal relationship

referenced below. between the EU Directive and the Paris MOU.

EU DEVELOPMENTS TARGET RATE FOR INSPECTION

On 1 July 1996 the EU Council Directive 95/21/EC on Port Under the Paris MOU Member States have agreed to inspect

State Control entered into effect and made Port State 25% of the estimated number of individual foreign merchant

Control mandatory in those states who are members of the ships which enter their ports.

European Union.
“Each authority will achieve, within a period of three years from
During 1996 the Paris Port State Control Committee
the coming into effect of the Memorandum, an annual total of
completed the necessary amendments in order to bring the
inspections corresponding to 25% of the estimated number of
Paris MOU in line with the EU Directive. Countries who are
individual foreign merchant ships, which entered the ports of its
members of the European Union are consequently obliged to
state during a recent representative period of 12 months.”
give effect to the Paris MOU, by virtue of the fact that the
SECTION 1.3 OF PARIS MEMORANDUM

9
PARIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
(PARIS MOU)

Interestingly, a review of the inspection efforts of individual deficiencies are found or the ship is reportedly not complying

Paris MOU Members reveals that some countries exceed the with the regulations, a more detailed inspection may be

average by a considerable margin while some fall below it. carried out. A ship may be detained and the master instructed

to rectify the deficiencies before departure.

“NO MORE FAVOURABLE TREATMENT” PRINCIPLE On a first inspection, the inspector has to ensure that as a

minimum the ship’s certificates and documents are on board

In applying a relevant instrument, the authorities will ensure
and are satisfactory. He must satisfy himself of the overall
that no more favourable treatment is given to ships entitled to
condition of the ship, including the engine room and
fly the flag of a state which is not a party to that Convention.
accommodation and hygiene conditions. Thereafter, if there
In such a case ships will be subject to a detailed inspection
are clear grounds for believing that the condition of a ship, its
and the port inspectors will follow the same guidelines as if the
equipment or its crew does not substantially meet the relevant
flag state was a party to the Convention.
requirements of a convention, a more detailed inspection will

be carried out, including further checking of compliance with

SELECTING A SHIP FOR INSPECTION
on board operational requirements.

Every day a number of ships are selected for inspection The non-mandatory guidelines which assist the inspectors

throughout the region. To facilitate selection, a central can be found at Annex 1 of the Paris MOU. See in particular

APPROXIMATE INSPECTION EFFORTS BY INDIVIDUAL PARIS MOU MEMBERS (1996)

37%
36% 36%
35% 35%

29% 29%
27%
25.5% 26%
24% 23.5%

19%
% OF SHIPS
CALLING INSPECTED 14%
11%
7.5%

4%
um

da

rk

ce

ly

ds

ay

nd

rat n

ain

UK
ion

en
a
an
nc

Fe ssia
lan

lan

Ita

ug
ma

rlan
ee

rw
lgi

na

la

ed
Sp
Fra

rm

rt
Fin

Ire

Po
Gr

No
Be

Ca

Ru
n

Sw
the

Po

de
De

Ge

Ne

Adapted from data in the Annual Report and Accounts, the Paris Memorandum of Understanding 1996

computer database, known as SIRENAC is consulted by Section 2 – Examination of Certificates and Documents – and

inspectors for data on ships’ particulars and for the reports of Section 3 – Items of General Importance.

previous inspections carried out within the Paris MOU region In addition, the Paris MOU, stipulates the first inspection

which assist the authorities in determining which kinds of ships requirements for the STCW 78 and the ILO 147, stating, at

to target. As this database grows and develops, the targeting Sections 5 and 6 respectively of Annex 1, that inspection

of ships is becoming increasingly sophisticated. requirements for these important conventions shall be as follows:

CONTROL UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF STCW 78

FIRST INSPECTION
The inspector shall look for:

Port State Control is carried out by properly qualified Port

● verification that all seafarers serving on board, who are
State Control officers (PSCO’s) acting under the responsibility
required to be certificated, hold an appropriate certificate
of the member state’s maritime authority. Inspections are
or a valid dispensation, or provide documentary proof that
generally unannounced and usually begins with verification of
an application for an endorsement has been submitted to
certificates and documents, moving on to check crew, manning
the flag state administration;
and various onboard operational requirements. When

10
● verification that the numbers and certificates of the sea- In addition to the above, any participating member, upon request

farers on board are in conformity with the applicable safe by another participating member, will endeavour to secure

manning requirements of the flag state administration; and, evidence relating to suspected violations of the requirements on

operational matters of Rule 10 of COLREG 72 and MARPOL

● assess the ability of the seafarers of the ship to maintain
73/78. The procedures for investigation into contravention of
watchkeeping standards as required by the Convention if there
discharge provisions are listed in Annex I of the Memorandum.
are clear grounds for believing that such standards are not

being maintained because any of the following have occurred: “BELOW CONVENTION SIZE” SHIPS

In the case of ships below 500 gross tonnage, ie., below

a. the ship has been involved in a collision, grounding or
“convention size”, the Paris MOU states that the inspectors will
stranding, or
apply those requirements of the relevant instruments as are

b. there has been a discharge of substances from the ship applicable and will, to the extent that a relevant instrument

when underway, at anchor or at berth which is illegal under does apply,

any international convention, or

“take such action as may be necessary to ensure that those ships

c. the ship has been manoeuvred in an erratic or unsafe are not clearly hazardous to safety, health or the environment”.

manner whereby routing measures adopted by the IMO or

Therefore, below convention size ships are subject to port state
safe navigation practices and procedures have not been
inspections under the Paris MOU and the inspectors follow the
followed, or
same inspection procedures set out at Annex I.

d. the ship is otherwise being operated in such a manner as

to pose a danger to persons, property or the environment. OVERALL NUMBER OF SHIPS DETAINED

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

CONTROL UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE
NUMBER OF SHIPS INSPECTED 441 525 588 926 1597 1837 1719
MERCHANT SHIPPING (MINIMUM STANDARDS)
DETENTION AS A PERCENTAGE 4.48 5.2 5.62 8.23 14.93 17.34 16.76*
CONVENTION 1976, (NO. 147) OF SHIPS INSPECTED

*AVERAGE DETENTION PERCENTAGE 1994-1996 = 16.35%

The inspectors shall be guided by:
Source: Annual Report and Accounts, the Paris Memorandum of Understanding 1996

● the Minimum Age Convention 1973 (No.138): or

PRIORITY INSPECTIONS
● the Minimum Age (Sea) Convention (Revised 1938 (No.58): or
If a ship has been inspected within the Paris MOU region during
● the Minimum Age (Sea) Convention 1920 (No.7);
the previous six months and on that occasion was found to

● the Medical Examination (Seafarers) Convention 1946 comply, the ship will in principle be exempt from further

(No.73); inspection unless, on a subsequent inspection, there are

clear grounds to warrant more detailed investigations, or if

● the Prevention of Accidents (Seafarers) Convention, 1970
deficiencies have been reported from a previous inspection.
(No.134) (Articles 4 and 7):
However, the Paris MOU provides that the following ships will

● the Accommodation of Crews Convention (Revised), 1949 be subject to “priority inspections”.

(No.92);
● Ships visiting a port of a state, the Authority of which is a

● the Food and Catering (Ships’ Crews) Convention, 1946 signatory to the Memorandum, for the first time after an

(No.68) (Article 5); absence of 12 months or more.

● the Officers’ Competency Certificates Convention, 1936 ● Ships flying the flag of a state appearing in the 3 year rolling

(No.53)(Articles 3 and 4). average table of above-average detention and delays.

When carrying out an inspection the inspectors are asked to ● Ships which have been permitted to leave the port of a

take into account the considerations given in the ILO publication state, the Authority of which is a signatory on the condition

“Inspection of Labour Conditions on board Ship: Guidelines that the deficiencies noted must be rectified within a

for procedures”. specified period, on expiry of such period.

11
PARIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
(PARIS MOU)

● Ships which have been reported by pilots or port CONCENTRATED INSPECTION CAMPAIGNS

authorities as having deficiencies which may prejudice their

The participating maritime authorities of the Paris MOU have
safe navigation. (93/75/EU Directive).
recently adopted, on an experimental basis, the idea of

● Ships whose statutory certificates on the ship’s concentrating on a particular aspect of inspection and control,

construction and equipment, have been issued by an using the developing SIRENAC database.

organisation which is not recognised by the Maritime Such campaigns, announced in the professional press and

Authority concerned. through other relevant channels, concentrate for a period of

usually three months on inspection of a limited number of

FLAG STATES WITH DETENTION PERCENTAGES EXCEEDING THREE-YEAR ROLLING items during all inspections. Selection of items for
AVERAGE PERCENTAGE, TO BE CATEGORISED AS PRIORITY CASES IN 1997-1998
concentrated inspection campaigns is either based on the
FLAG STATES NO. OF NO. OF DETENTIONS EXCESS OF frequency of deficiencies noted in the subject areas, or on the
INDIVIDUAL DETENTIONS AVERAGE %
SHIPS INVOLVED 1994-1996 1994-1996* recent entry into force of new international requirements. For
1994-1996
example, during 1996, a concentrated inspection campaign
SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC 129 79 61.24 44.89
was carried out on compliance with the requirements of
ROMANIA 287 158 55.05 38.70
MARPOL 73/78 to keep an accurate Oil Record Book.
HONDURAS 378 203 53.70 37.35

BELIZE 83 39 46.99 30.64

A “CLEAN” INSPECTION REPORT
TURKEY 855 385 45.03 28.68
If a ship is found to comply, the inspector will issue a “clean”
CUBA 73 32 43.84 27.49
inspection report (Form A) to the Master of the ship. Relevant
MOROCCO 99 43 43.43 27.08
ship data, ship and the inspection result will be recorded on
LEBANON 77 29 37.66 21.31
the central computer database, SIRENAC located in Saint
EGYPT 134 46 43.33 17 98

ALGERIA 130 42 32.31 15.96 Malo, France. The “Inspection A” Report must be retained on

ST VINCENT & GRENADINES 796 235 31.78 15.43 board for a period of two years and be available for
MALTA 1695 469 27.67 11.32 examination by Port State Control officers at all times.
IRAN 68 17 25.00 8.65
GROUNDS FOR “MORE DETAILED INSPECTION”
PORTUGAL 117 25 21.37 5.02

CYPRUS 2625 541 20.61 4.26 If valid certificates or documents are not on board, or if there are

BULGERIA 170 34 20.59 4.24 “clear grounds” to believe that the condition of a ship, its
ESTONIA 252 50 19.84 3.49 equipment, its on board operational procedures and compliance,
CROATIA 92 18 19.57 3.22 or its crew does not substantially meet the requirements of a
BARBADOS 77 15 19.48 3.13
relevant Convention, a more detailed inspection will be carried out.
PANAMA 2412 464 19.24 2.89
Clear grounds for a more detailed inspection are set out at
CHINA PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC 344 61 17.73 1.38
Annex 1, Section 4 and include:
LITHUANIA 247 43 17.41 1.06

GREECE 1363 228 16.73 0.38 1. a report or notification by another Maritime Authority
UKRAINE 673 112 16.64 0.29
2. a report or complaint by the Master, a crew member, or
Average Detention Percentage 1994-96 = 16.35%
any person or organisation with a legitimate interest in the
Source: Annual Report and Accounts, the Paris Memorandum of Understanding 1996
safe operation of the ship, shipboard living and working

conditions or the prevention of pollution, unless the

● Ships carrying dangerous or polluting goods, which have
Authority concerned deems the report or complaint to be
failed to report all relevant information to the Authority of
manifestly unfounded. The identify of the person lodging
the port and coastal state.
the report or the complaint must not be revealed to the

● Ships which are in a category for which expanded Master or the shipowner of the ship concerned

inspection has been decided. 3. the ship has been accused of an alleged violation of the

provisions on discharge of harmful substances or effluents

● Ships which have been suspended from their class for
4. the ship has been involved in a collision, grounding or
safety reasons in the course of the preceding six months.
stranding on its way to the port

12
5. the emission of false distress alerts not followed by proper ● passenger ships

cancellation procedures ● gas/chemical tankers older than 10 years of age all as set

6. the ship has been identified as a priority case for inspection out at Annex 1, Section 8 of Paris MOU.

7. the ship is flying the flag of a non-party to a relevant

DEFICIENCIES, SUSPENSION OF INSPECTION
instrument
AND RECTIFICATION
8. inaccuracies and other inadequacies have been revealed in
When deficiencies are found during an inspection, the nature
the ship’s documents
of the deficiencies and the corresponding action taken are
9. the absence of principal equipment or arrangements
filled in on the inspection report.
required by the conventions

10. evidence from the Port State Control officer’s general

DETENTION PER SHIP TYPE
impressions and observations that serious hull or
24.54%
General dry cargo ships
structural deterioration or deficiencies exist that may 24.84%

place at risk the structural, watertight or weathertight 17.92%

Bulk carriers
17.45%
integrity of the ship

11. excessively unsanitary conditions on board the ship: 14.68%

Tankers/combination carriers
11.84%
12. information or evidence that the Master or crew is not
4.78%
Gas carriers
familiar with essential shipboard operations relating to the 2.22%

safety of ships or the prevention of pollution, or that such 13.22%

Chemical tankers
13.17%
operations have not been carried out
6.77%
13. indications that the relevant crew members are unable Passenger ships/ferries
9.57%
to communicate appropriately with each other, or with
13.87%
Refrigerated cargo ships
other persons on board, or that the ship is unable to 13.45%

communicate with the shore-based authorities either in a 9.19%

Ro-ro/container ships
6.56%
common language or in the language of those authorities
12.56%
14. evidence of cargo and other operations not being Other types
12.69%
conducted safely or in accordance with IMO guidelines
1995 1996
15. clear grounds under the provision of STCW 78, as
Source: Annual Report and Accounts, the Paris Memorandum of Understanding 1996
set out above.

Action which may be requested by the inspector can be found

The above list is not exhaustive. If an inspector decides that a
on the reverse side of Form B of the inspection report and are:
more detailed inspection is called for, he may:

00 no action taken
● conduct a more detailed inspection in the area where “clear
10 deficiency rectified
grounds” have been established;
12 all deficiencies rectified
● carry out a more detailed inspection on other areas at 15 rectify deficiency at next port
random; 16 rectify deficiency within 14 days

17 Master instructed to rectify deficiency before departure

● include further checking of compliance with on board
20 grounds for delay
operational equipment.
25 ship allowed to sail after delay
“EXPANDED INSPECTIONS” 30 grounds for detention
Certain categories of ships are automatically subject to an 35 ship allowed to sail after detention
“expanded inspection” if they do not “pass” the first inspection. 36 ship allowed to sail after follow-up detention
The types of ships which fall into this category are: 40 next port informed

45 next port informed to re-detain

● oil tankers
50 flag state/consul informed
● bulk carriers older than 12 years of age

13
PARIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
(PARIS MOU)

55 flag state consulted appropriate conditions determined by the maritime authority of

60 region state informed the port of departure, with a view to ensuring that the ship can

70 classification society informed so proceed without unreasonable danger to safety, health or

80 temporary substitution of equipment the environment. In this case a follow up inspection will

85 investigation of contravention of discharge provisions normally be carried out in the “follow up” port.

(MARPOL) If the inspector does allow the ship to proceed to a repair

95 letter of warranty issued yard and the ship sails:

96 letter of warranty withdrawn

● without complying with the conditions set by the authority
99 other (specify in clear text)
in the port of inspection; or

In principle all deficiencies must be rectified before departure

● refuses to comply by not calling into the indicated repair yard,
of the ship and the above list is not restrictive. Note the

general catch-all at Clause 3.2. the ship will be refused access to any port within a country who is

a signatory to the Paris Memorandum until the owner or operator

“Nothing in these procedures will be construed as restricting
has provided evidence to the satisfaction of the authority where
the power of the Authorities to take measures within its
the ship was inspected, that the ship fully complies with all the
jurisdiction in respect of any matter…”
applicable requirements of the relevant instruments.

MAJOR CATEGORIES OF DEFICIENCIES IN RELATION TO INSPECTION/SHIPS

12123
12077
11408

8622
8078 7576
7812 7543
6323
7026
6021
5799
3934
2950 3056 3121
2588
2801 3031 3080
2518
2523 2899 1417 1525
2357
1381 1520
1172 1369

Life saving Firefighting Safety Navigation Marine Pollution Ships Load lines Prop/Aux Accommodation Crew
appliances appliances in general Annex 1 certificates Machinery

CATEGORY
1994 1995 1996

Source: Annual Report and Accounts, the Paris Memorandum of Understanding 1996

DETENTION In addition the inspectors and/or the repair yard will alert all

other authorities nearby ensuring that the ship is denied entry

“Where the deficiencies are clearly hazardous to safety, health
throughout the region of the Paris MOU (Clause 3.9.1). Before
or the environment, so that the maritime authorities concerned
denying entry, the Authority in whose state the repair yard lies
need to ensure that the hazard is rectified before the ship is
may request consultations with the flag administration of the
allowed to proceed to sea. For this purpose appropriate action
ship concerned.
will be taken, which may include detention... due to established
The only exceptions as regards entry in the circumstances
deficiencies which, individually or together, would render the
contemplated by Clause 3.9.1 are:
continued operation hazardous.”

CLAUSE 3.7.1 ● force majeure

● over-riding safety considerations

If the deficiencies cannot be remedied in the port of inspection,
● to reduce or minimise the risk of pollution
the inspector may allow the ship to proceed to another port, as
● to have deficiencies rectified
determined by the Master and the inspector, subject to any

14
COST/GUARANTEE FOR COSTS/APPEAL PROCESS 13. Year built

When a ship has been detained all costs accrued by the port 14. Issuing authority of relevant certificate(s)

state in inspecting the ship will be charged to the owner or the 15. Date of departure

operator of the ship or to his representative in the port state. 16. Estimated place and time of arrival

The detention will not be lifted until full payment has been 17. Nature of deficiencies

made or a sufficient guarantee has been given for the 18. Action taken

reimbursement of the costs (Clause 3.12). 19. Suggested action

The owner or the operator of a ship has a right of appeal 20. Suggested action at next port of call

against a detention taken by the port state authority. An appeal 21. Name and facsimile number of sender

will not however result in the detention being lifted immediately

In the event of detention, the Report from Inspectors is sent to:
(Clause 3.13).

● Next port
INSPECTION/DETENTION INFORMATION
● Owners
AND BLACKLISTING
● Flag state, or its Consul
Under the Paris MOU each Authority agrees, as a minimum, to
● Classification society
publish quarterly information concerning ships detained during
● Other MOU
the previous 3-month period and which have been detained

more than once during the past 24 months. The information

DEFICIENCIES
published includes the following:
NUMBER OF DEFICIENCIES

1. name of the ship 3.32 5.15

3.36 5.26
3.14 4.98
2. name of the shipowner or the operator of the ship

3. IMO number
54,451 53,967
4. flag state 53,120
5. classification society, where relevant, and, if applicable, any

other party which has issued certificates to such ship in

1994 1995 1996
accordance with the relevant instruments
Ratio of Deficiencies to Inspections Ratio of Deficiencies to Number
6. reason for detention of Individual Ships Involved

7. port and date of detention Source: Annual Report and Accounts, the Paris Memorandum of Understanding 1996

In the case of deficiencies not fully rectified or only provisionally

GENERAL PUBLICITY AND DISSEMINATION OF
repaired, a message will be sent to the competent Authority of
INSPECTION INFORMATION TO OTHER REGIONAL
the state where the next port of call of the ship is situated.
GROUPS AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS
Each message must contain the following information:
Each Authority reports on all of its activities, including inspections

1. Date and their results in accordance with procedures specified in the

2. From (country) Memorandum, at Annex 3 (form A). Arrangements have been

3. Port made for the exchange this information with other regional

4. To (country) MOU, as well as flag states and the various international

5. Port organisations such as the IMO, and the EU.

6. A statement reading deficiencies to be rectified

7. Name of ship

8. IMO identification number (if available)

9. Type of ship

10. Flag of ship

11. Call sign

12. Gross tonnage

15
ASIA PACIFIC MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
(TOKYO MOU)

R U S S I A N F E D E R A T I O N

C A N A D A

JAPAN

C H I N A
REPUBLIC OF KOREA

HONG KONG

PHILIPPINES
THAILAND

VIETNAM

MALAYSIA
SINGAPORE
PAPUA
NEW
INDONESIA GUINEA
SOLOMAN
ISLANDS

VANUATU

FIJI

A U S T R A L I A

NEW
ZEALAND

The success of the Paris MOU has led to a similar arrangement MEMBER STATES

being established for the Asia-Pacific region. In December

The current member states of the Tokyo MOU are:
1993 sixteen maritime authorities met in Tokyo to sign the

Asia-Pacific Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Australia Malaysia

Control, (the “Tokyo MOU”). The Tokyo MOU came into effect Canada New Zealand

from 1 April 1994. This MOU is not as developed as the Paris China, including Hong Kong Papua New Guinea

MOU, but it is making rapid progress. Special Administrative Region Philippines

At its most recent Annual Meeting in Auckland the Port Fiji Russian Federation

State Control Committee agreed a revised Agreement, brining Indonesia Singapore

the Tokyo MOU up-to-date with the latest Paris MOU, Japan Thailand

incorporating a broader and more exacting regime of Republic of Korea Vanuatu

inspections, follow up procedures and publications etc. It is

The following states are already signatories to the agreement
anticipated that this will be published shortly and at that time
and it is anticipated that in time they will become full
we shall incorporate the amendments into this manual.
participating members:
For the time being the information in this section provides

an outline of Port State Control procedures currently in force Solomon Islands Vietnam

under the Tokyo MOU.

16
OUTLINE STRUCTURE TARGET RATE FOR INSPECTION

The executive body of the Tokyo MOU is the Port State Each participating member of the Tokyo MOU must determine

Control Committee, which became operational in April 1994. an appropriate annual average percentage of individual foreign

This is composed of the representatives of the participating merchant ships to be inspected. As a preliminary target the

maritime authorities and meets once a year, or at more Committee has requested that they “endeavour to attain” a

frequent intervals if necessary. regional annual inspection rate of 50% of the total number of

Representatives of the International Maritime Organisation ships operating in the region by the year 2000 (Clause 1.4).

(IMO) and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) The percentage is based on the number of ships which entered

participate as observers at the meetings of the Port State regional ports during a base period observed by the

Control Committee, as do representatives of the Paris MOU. Committee. According to the latest Annual Report and

The fourteenth Coast Guard District (Hawaii) of the United Accounts published by the Port State Control Committee in

States Coast Guard acts as Observer Authority. 1994 the overall regional inspection rate was 32% and the

inspection rate of individual authorities was as follows:

BASIC PRINCIPLES
Australia 23.7% Malaysia 0.38%
As with the Paris MOU, the Tokyo MOU states in its recitals Canada 3.18% New Zealand 9.42%
that the ultimate responsibility for implementing international China 10.04% Papua New Guinea 0.02%
conventions rests with owners and the flag states, but it is Hong Kong 2.04% Russian Federation 2.85%
recognised that effective action by port states is required to Japan 25.41% Singapore 1.62%
prevent the operation of sub-standard ships. Indonesia 15.21% Thailand 0.02%
Republic of Korea 6.12%

THE CONVENTIONS Figures taken from the Annual Report, Tokyo MOU 1996

For the purpose of the Tokyo MOU, the following are the
SUMMARY OF PORT STATE CONTROL RESULTS
“Relevant Instruments” on which regional Port State Control

is based: INSPECTIONS AS A % OF SHIPS VISITED

32 % 39 % 53%
● The International Convention on Load Lines, 1996, as 689 (5.63%)
524 (5.93%)
282 (3.8%)
amended

8834 12,243
8000
● The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea INSPECTIONS INSPECTIONS INSPECTIONS

1974 and its Protocol of 1978 (SOLAS 74/78)

● The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution 1994 1995 1996

from Ships 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978, as Detentions 3 Year Rolling Average 5.25%

amended (MARPOL 73/78) Source: Annual Report of the Tokyo MOU 1996

● The International Convention on Standards of Training,

Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978; as “NO MORE FAVOURABLE TREATMENT” PRINCIPLE

amended (STCW 78)

In implementing a convention standard the authorities have

● The Convention on the International Regulations for to ensure that no more favourable treatment is given to ships

Preventing Collisions at Sea, as amended (COLREG 72) entitled to fly the flag of a state which is not party to that

convention. Such ships are subject to the same inspections

● The Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention,
and the port inspectors follow the same guidelines.
1976 (ILO Convention No. 147)

Note that, unlike the other regional agreements, the Tonnage

Convention is not listed, but it is understood that this is

incorporated into the revised Agreement.

17
ASIA PACIFIC MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
(TOKYO MOU)

FIRST INSPECTION believing that the condition of a ship or its equipment or its crew

does not substantially meet the requirements of a relevant

Under the Tokyo MOU Port State Control is carried out by
instrument, a more detailed inspection will be carried out. In
inspectors acting under the responsibility of the participating
addition, the inspectors conduct an inspection of several areas
Maritime Authority to whom they report. The professional
on board, to verify that the overall condition of the ship
requirements and training of the surveyors are not so extensively
(including the engine room and accommodation, and including
set out as in the Paris MOU, simply stating at Clause 3.5 that
hygienic conditions, tests, drills, musters etc) complies with the
“Inspections will be carried out by properly qualified persons....”.
standards required by various certificates. The Tokyo MOU
However, after more than two years of preparations, the Tokyo
sets out general inspection criteria in Annex 1, and also
PSC Manual has recently been published for use by inspectors
specifically references and incorporates the ILO 147 and the
in the region. The manual is intended to provide guidance and
ILO publication “Inspection of Labour Conditions on board
information that will assist the inspectors in carrying out their
Ship: Guidelines for Procedure”.
duties in a harmonised manner.
In addition to the above, the document informs us that any

participating member will, when requested to do so by another

PORT STATE INSPECTIONS CARRIED OUT BY
INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATING MEMBERS participating member, endeavour to secure evidence relating to

suspected violations of the requirements on operational matters

AUTHORITY NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF
INSPECTIONS SHIPS WITH DEFICIENCIES DETENTIONS of Rule 10 of COLREG 72 and MARPOL 73/78.
DEFICIENCIES

AUSTRALIA 2901 1976 13638 248 SHIP SELECTION CRITERIA

CANADA 389 246 1263 51
The participating members of the Tokyo MOU seek to avoid
CHINA 1229 724 4048 32
inspecting ships which have been inspected by any other
FIJI 0 0 0 0
participating member within the previous six months, unless
HONG KONG 250 232 3039 140
they have clear grounds for inspection or they fall into the
INDONESIA 1862 559 1229 0
categories of ships listed at Clause 3.3 to which they are asked to
JAPAN 3111 1204 3342 88
pay special attention to, namely:
REPUBLIC OF KOREA 749 291 1700 48

MALAYSIA 47 27 158 4 ● passenger ships, roll-on/roll-off ships and bulk carriers;

NEW ZEALAND 1153 418 1414 9
● ships which may present a special hazard, including oil
PAPUA NEW GUINEA 3 3 40 1

RUSSIAN FEDERATION 349 160 1249 54 tankers, gas carriers, chemical tankers and ships carrying

SINGAPORE 198 80 480 14 harmful substances in package form:

THAILAND 2 0 0 0
● groups of ships appearing in the three-year rolling average
VANATU 0 0 0 0
table of above average delays and detentions in the annual
TOTAL 12243 5920 31600 689
report of the Memorandum:
Source: Annual Report of the Tokyo MOU 1996, published September 1997

● ships which have had several recent deficiencies:

Inspections are generally unannounced and usually begin with

● ships which, according to the exchanged information, have
verification of certificates and documents. When deficiencies
not been inspected by any authorities within a previous
are found or the ship is reportedly not complying with
period of six months.
regulations, a more detailed inspection may be carried out. As

with the Paris MOU when serious deficiencies are found, a ship The revised Tokyo MOU has adopted the ship selection criteria

may be detained and the Master ordered to rectify the currently in force under the Paris MOU, but as stated

deficiencies before departure. previously, the revised Agreement is not available at the date

More specifically, Clause 3.1 states that the inspector will visit of publication of this manual.

on board a ship in order to check the certificates and documents Concentrated inspection campaigns, currently undertaken

relevant for the purposes of the Tokyo MOU. In the absence of by the Paris MOU on an experimental basis, will be considered

valid certificates or documents, or if there are clear grounds for by the Tokyo PSC Committee at its next meeting in 1998.

18
 PORT STATE INSPECTIONS CARRIED OUT BY AUTHORITIES

23.7 25.41

15.21

% OF 10.04
INSPECTIONS 9.42%

6.12
3.18 2.85
2.04 1.62
0.38 0.02 0.0
a

rea

ea

ion
a

ina

ng

of blic

sia

w G ua

rat n

re

d
ali

esi
pa

Fe ssia
lan

an
po
uin
Ko

Ne Pap
na

lay
str

Ch

Ko
pu
Ja

ail
on

ea

ga
Ca

Ru
Au

Ma
ng

de
Re

Th
Ind

wZ

Sin
Ho

Ne
Source: Annual Report of the Tokyo MOU 1996, published September 1997

A “CLEAN” INSPECTION REPORT 2. Evidence of cargo and other operations not being

If a ship is found to comply with all matters, it is issued with a conducted safely or in accordance with IMO guidelines.

“clean” inspection report (Form A) to the Master of the ship. It is 3. Involvement of the ship in incidents due to failure to

advisable that this Report is kept onboard for a minimum of six comply with operational requirements.

months. Relevant ship data and the inspection results are 4. Evidence, from the witnessing of a fire and abandon ship

recorded on the central computer base at Ottawa. drill, that the crew are not familiar with essential

procedures.
GROUNDS FOR “MORE DETAILED INSPECTIONS”
5. Absence of an up-to-date muster list.
If valid certificates or documents are not onboard, or if there
6. Indications that key crew members may not be able to
are “clear grounds” to believe that the condition of a ship, its
communicate with each other or with other persons onboard.
equipment, its onboard operational procedures and

compliance or its crew does not substantially meet the As with the Paris MOU, however, note at Clause 3.2.3, the

requirements of a relevant convention, a more detailed general catch-all,

inspection will be carried out.

“Nothing in these procedures will be construed as restricting

Clear grounds for a more detailed inspection are, amongst the power of the Authorities to take measures within its

others; jurisdiction in respect of any matter…”

1. Report or notification by another Authority.

2. A report or complaint by the Master, a crew member, or any

person or organisation with a legitimate interest in the safe TYPES OF SHIPS INSPECTED

operation of the ship, ship board living and working

Gas carrier (198)
conditions or the prevention of pollution, unless the Oil tankship/combination (960)

Other (590)
Authority concerned deems the report or complaint to be 1.62%
7.84%
Bulk carrier (3802)
manifestly unfounded. 4.82%
31.05%
3. Other indications of serious deficiencies having regard in
Ro-ro/container/
vehicle (2521) 18.39%
particular to Annex 1.

3.98%
2.9%
For the purpose of control on compliance with onboard
1.29% Reefer cargo (487)
Chemical tankship (355)
operational requirements specific “clear grounds” are: 28.11%
Passenger ferry (158)

1. Evidence of operational shortcomings revealed during Port General dry cargo (3442)

State Control procedures in accordance with SOLAS 74,

Source: Annual Report of the Tokyo MOU 1996, published September 1997
MARPOL 73/78 and STCW 1978.

19
ASIA PACIFIC MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
(TOKYO MOU)

70 classification society informed

DETENTIONS FOR FLAG IN RESPECT OF FLAGS WITH
80 temporary substitution of equipment
DETENTION PERCENTAGES EXCEEDING 3-YEAR ROLLING
AVERAGE DETENTION PERCENTAGE 85 investigation of contravention of discharge provisions

(MARPOL)
EXCESS OF
NO. OF NO. OF DETENTION AVERAGE
INSPECTIONS DETENTIONS PERCENTAGE
99 other (specify in clear text)
FLAG DETENTION
1994-1996 1994-1996 1994-1996 PERCENTAGE
1994-1996
In principle all deficiencies must be rectified prior to departure
VIETNAM 109 41 37.61 32.36
of the ship, and the above list is not restrictive.
INDONESIA 182 24 13.19 7.84

BELIZE 430 54 12.56 7.31

DETENTION
CHINA, PEOPLE’S REP. OF 1393 167 11.99 6.74

TURKEY 180 19 10.56 5.31 The following are the main criteria for the detention of a ship,
UKRAINE 86 9 10.47 5.22 per Clause 3.7,
THAILAND 241 21 8.71 3.46
“In the case of deficiencies which are clearly hazardous to
HONDURAS 620 53 8.55 3.30
safety, health or the environment, the Authority will, except as
CYPRUS 1148 95 8.28 3.03

INDIA 284 22 7.75 2.50 provided in paragraph 3.8, ensure that the hazard is removed

MALTA 488 37 7.58 2.33 before the ship is allowed to proceed to sea and for this

ST VINCENT & GRENADINES 733 55 7.50 2.25 purpose will take appropriate action, which may include

IRAN 123 8 6.50 1.25 detention. The Authority will, as soon as possible, notify the
TAIWAN, CHINA 316 20 6.33 1.08 flag Administration through its counsel or, in their absence, its
EGYPT 64 4 6.25 1.00 nearest diplomatic representative or its maritime authority of
KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 913 52 5.70 0.45 the action taken. Where the certifying authority is an
GREECE 1050 59 5.62 0.37
organisation other than a maritime administration, the former
3-year rolling average detention percentage 1994-1996 = 5.25
will also be advised.”
Source: Annual Report of the Tokyo MOU 1996, published September 1997

Clause 3.8 states that, if deficiencies cannot be remedied in

DEFICIENCIES, SUSPENSION OF INSPECTION the port of inspection, the inspector may allow the ship to
AND RECTIFICATION

If deficiencies are found, then, per Clause 3.6, each Authority

DETENTION PER SHIP TYPE
is asked to endeavour to secure the rectification of deficiencies

detected. The nature of the deficiencies and the corresponding 7.55%

7.39%
action taken are filled in on the inspection report. Action which

may be requested by the inspector can be found on the

Average Detention percentage = 5.63%
reverse side of Form B of the inspection report and are:
5.06%

Codes
3.9%
00 no action taken 3.38%
3.08%
2.89%
10 deficiencies rectified 2.6%

15 rectify deficiency at next port

16 rectify deficiency within 14 days 1.01%

17 master instructed to rectify deficiency before departure

30 ship detained
r

ip
icle

n
rgo

r/v ro/

ina /

rgo

ier

ry

r
rrie

mb kship

he
tio

sh

fer
arr
ine Ro-
ca

Ot
eh

35 detention raised
ca

nk
r/c

er
sc
n
dry

l ta
lk

efe
l ta

ng
Ga
Bu

ica

sse

40 next port informed

Re
co
ral

Oi
nta

em
ne

Pa
co
Ge

Ch

50 flag administration/consul/flag maritime authority informed

55 flag administration/maritime authority consulted Source: Annual Report of the Tokyo MOU 1996,
published September 1997
60 region authority informed

20
proceed to another port, as determined by the Master and the 9. Type of ship;

inspector, subject to any appropriate conditions determined by 10. Flag of ship;

the maritime authority of the port of departure, with a view to 11. Call sign;

ensuring that the ship can so proceed without unreasonable 12. Gross tonnage;

danger to safety, health or the environment. In this case a 13. Year of build;

follow up inspection will normally be carried out in the 14. Issuing authority of relevant certificate(s);

respective “follow up” port. 15. Date of departure;

In addition the inspectors and/or the repair yard will alert 16. Estimated place and time of arrival;

all other authorities nearby, thereby ensuring that the ship is 17. Nature of deficiencies;

denied entry throughout the region of the Tokyo MOU. Before 18. Action taken;

denying entry, the Authority in whose state the repair yard lies 19. Suggested action;

may request consultations with the flag administration of the 20. Suggested action at next port of call;

ship concerned. 21. Name and facsimile number of sender.

COMPARISON OF NUMBER OF DEFICIENCIES BY MAIN CATEGORIES

8290
7938

5185 5248
4601 4384
4067
3769
3441
3160 3142
2517 2616
1996
1704 1475
1429
968

Life saving Firefighting Safety Load lines Navigation Others

appliances appliances in general
CATEGORY
1994 1995 1996
Source: Annual Report of the Tokyo MOU 1996, published September 1997

INSPECTION/DETENTION INFORMATION As for the publication of a quarterly detention list, the Tokyo

AND BLACKLISTING PSC Committee decided at its most recent meeting to

Each Authority undertakes to report on its inspections under introduce this in the near future and to encourage individual

the Tokyo MOU and their results, in accordance with the participating members to publish their own statistics as well.

procedures specified in the Memorandum.

In the case of deficiencies not fully rectified or only GENERAL PUBLICITY AND DISSEMINATION OF

provisionally repaired, a message will be sent to the Authority INSPECTION INFORMATION TO OTHER REGIONAL

of the ship’s next port of call. Each message must contain the GROUPS AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS

following information:
Arrangements have been made for the exchange of inspection

1. Date; information with other regional organisations working under a

2. From (country or region); similar Memorandum of Undertaking. For reporting and storing

3. Port; Port State inspection results and facilitating exchange of

4. To (country or region); information in the region, a computerised database system,

5. Port; APCIS, has been established in Ottawa under the auspices of

6. A statement reading: deficiencies to be rectified; Transport Canada.

7. Name of ship;

8. IMO identification number (if available);

21
LATIN AMERICAN AGREEMENT
(ACUERDO DE VIÑA DEL MAR)

CUBA
MEXICO

PANAMA VENEZUELA

COLOMBIA

ECUADOR

B R A Z I L
PERU

CHILE

URUGUAY

ARGENTINA

The information contained in the following section provides statistics as well as the development of a regional database

an outline of Port State Control procedures under the Latin have been arranged under the auspices of the Argentinian

American Agreement on Port State Control (the “Viña Del Coast Guard based in Buenos Aires.

Mar Agreement”).

BASIC PRINCIPLES

MEMBER STATES
The recitals of the Latin American Agreement emphasises that

The current member states are: the main responsibility for effective enforcement of international

conventions lies with the owners and the flag states, but as with
Argentina Brazil
the other regional agreements it recognises the “need for
Chile Colombia
effective action of Port States in order to prevent the operation
Cuba Ecuador
of deficient ships.”
Mexico Panama
The recitals also acknowledge the objectives of ROCRAM
Peru Uruguay
and other South American regional resolutions and herald
Venezuela
a harmonisation role for the Agreement when it states “is

necessary to avoid differences in the treatment given to ships

OUTLINE OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE
by the different courts and that said practices may distort
VIÑA DEL MAR AGREEMENT
competition between ports”. As with the other regional

The executive body of the Latin American Agreement on Port agreements it regards its primary role as one of “back up”

State Control is the Port State Control Committee. This is to the roles of the flag states and coordination, as it states in

composed of representatives of the Member states which the recitals:

meets once a year, or at shorter intervals if necessary.

Administrative procedures, co-ordination and publication of

22
“to implement an efficient harmonic control system by port ● 1972 Collision Regulations (COLREG 72)

states and to strengthen co-operation and interchange of

● International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of
information.”
Ships (TONNAGE 1969)

PERTINENT INSTRUMENTS
TARGET RATE FOR INSPECTION

For the purposes of the Agreement, the internationally accepted

Each participating maritime authority is asked to make efforts
Conventions monitored by the Agreement are called “Pertinent
to reach, within a maximum three-year term as from date of
Instruments” and are:
enforcement of this Agreement, a survey minimum of 15% of

● International Convention on Load Lines, 1966 foreign ships that may have entered the ports of its state

(LOADLINES 1996) during a recent representative period of 12 months. As with

the other regional agreements, some individual countries are

● International convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974
exceeding this target, others are falling below it.
(SOLAS 1974)

● 1978 Protocol relating to the International Convention for “NO MORE FAVOURABLE TREATMENT” PRINCIPLE

the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS Protocol)

When applying the provisions of pertinent instruments, the

● International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution participating maritime authorities are asked to enforce the

from Ships, 1973, amended by 1978 Protocol provisions in such a manner that the ships authorised to fly the

(MARPOL 73/78) flag of a state that is not a party to the Convention concerned

shall not be granted more favourable treatment than ships

● International Convention on Standards of Training,
which are not.
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978

(STCW 1978)

INSPECTIONS

733

564

237
NOT AVAILABLE

117
93 79
53 58
39 35 34 37
24 14 14
0 1 0
na

zil

ile

bia

ba

ru

ela
do

ua
am
nti

Bra

Pe
Ch

Cu

ezu
lom

ua

ug
n
ge

Pa
Ec

Ur

n
Ar

Co

Ve

1996 (1239) 1997 (First Quarter) (893)

Source: Acuerdo Latin American Sobre Control de Burques pour el Estando Rector del Puerto, Estadisticas, 1996 and 1997

23
LATIN AMERICAN AGREEMENT
(ACUERDO DE VIÑA DEL MAR)

“BELOW CONVENTION SIZE” SHIPS ● Ships which may have recently suffered repeated

deficiencies.
In the case of ships under 500 gross registered tons,

participating maritime authorities are asked to use the FIRST INSPECTION

applicable provisions of the pertinent instruments and, to the Clause 3.1 states that in fulfilling their obligations, the

extent they are not applicable, to take the measures necessary inspectors initially carry out a survey which consists of a visit

to ensure that the ships concerned are not an obvious hazard onboard the ship in order to check the validity of the pertinent

to the safety or the marine environment. certificates and documents, as well as the general condition of

In addition Annex 1 has the following specific guidelines: the ship, its equipment and crew. In these initial reviews and

control procedures, the inspectors include compliance with

“Although a pertinent instrument is not applied to vessels under
onboard operational requirements. In the absence of valid
500 registered tons, it is the surveyor’s task to determine
certificates or documents, or should there exist clear
whether a vessel has an acceptable level as regards safety or
indications to consider that the ship, its equipment or crew do
the marine environment. When considering this, the surveyor
not meet the provisions of a pertinent instrument, a more
should take into account factors such as length and nature of
detailed survey is then carried out.
the intended trip or service, size and type of vessel, its
The initial surveys are carried out in accordance with the
equipment and the characteristics of the cargo.
procedures set out in Annex 1, which provides detailed
When performing the functions established in paragraph
guidelines for the surveyors. In particular at Clause 1.2 the
4.2, the surveyor shall take as a guide any of the certificates
guidelines state:
and other documents issued by the vessel’s flag state. From

the analysis of the said certificates and documents and from “When taking the decision to correct a deficiency or detain a

his general impression of the vessel, the surveyor shall use his vessel, the surveyor shall take into account the results of the

professional judgment to determine whether the vessel should be more detailed survey performed pursuant to the provision of

subjected to a more detailed survey and in which aspects, taking Section 3.

into account factors mentioned in paragraph 4.2. Should a more The surveyor shall use his professional judgement to

detailed survey be carried out, the surveyor should, as far as determine whether it is convenient to detain the vessel until the

he deems it necessary, take into account the aspects set forth deficiencies be corrected, or authorise the vessel to sail with

in paragraph 4.4. Although such enumeration is not complete, certain deficiencies, should this not pose an excessive hazard

it can be used as an example of the most relevant aspects.” to safety or the marine environment, taking into account the

special circumstances of the intended trip. As regards minimum

SELECTING A SHIP FOR INSPECTION manning criteria, the special procedures set forth in Section 3

shall be taken into account.”

Clause 3.4 states that the Maritime Authorities should try to

avoid surveying ships inspected by any of the other Section 3 provides guidelines as to manning and certification

participating Maritime Authorities during the preceding 6 criteria which, in an interesting variant to the other regional

months, “unless there exist clear indications of the need for agreements, states:

surveying them” or if the ships are of the type mentioned in

“The basic principle for the survey of a foreign vessel crew
Clause 3.3 of the Memorandum, in which case the inspectors
conducted by a port state shall take into account the minimum
“shall carry out surveys as may deem proper”.
manning requirements of the vessel flag state… detainment, as
Clause 3.3 provides that when selecting ships for survey,
a port state measure shall be decided solely upon the grounds
the inspectors should pay special attention to:
set forth in the pertinent instruments and used in conjunction

● Passenger ships, ro-ro ships, and bulk grain carriers. with the opinion of the flag state. Should a prompt answer be

difficult to obtain, and should the deficiency be of such a nature

● Ships which may pose a special risk, such as oil tankers,
as to render the vessel obviously unsafe for the intended trip or
gas carriers, chemical tankers and ships carrying dangerous
service, detainment shall be applied”
and/or harmful substances and goods in packages.

24
This interrelationship between flag state and Port State Control 3.3.2. In ships engaged in the transport of liquid

is evidenced further at Clause 3.2 (Manning Control) and dangerous cargo in bulk, certification control should be

Clause 3.3 (Certification Control), of Annex l: more stringent. The inspector should ensure that officers

responsible for cargo handling and operation have a valid

3.2. Manning Controls
document certifying that they have received an adequate
3.2.1. Should the ship be manned in accordance with the
training and have the proper experience. No exemptions are
minimum manning document or an equivalent one issued
accepted. Should a deficiency be detected, the Master is
by the ship Flag state, the inspector should accept that the
informed and the deficiency should be corrected.
ship is manned safely unless the document has been issued

without taking into account the principles contained in the A “CLEAN” INSPECTION REPORT

Pertinent Instruments and in IMO guidelines for the If a ship is found to comply, the inspector will issue a “clean”

application of Minimum Manning Principles. If this is so, the inspection report (Form A) to the Master of the ship. Relevant

inspector must consult with the Flag state. ship data and the inspection result will be recorded on the

central computer database located in Buenos Aires. The

3.2.2. Should the crew number or composition not comply
“Inspection A” Report must be retained and be made available
with the provisions of the minimum manning document, the
for examination by Port State Control officers at all times.
Port state should request the ship Flag state its opinion

whether the ship may or may not sail with its current crew
DEFICIENCIES
number and composition. The request should be made as

soon as possible. Should the crew number and composition COUNTRY INSPECTIONS NO.OF INSPECTIONS WHERE
DEFICIENCIES WERE FOUND
differ from the minimum manning document, or should the
1996 1997 1996 1997
ship Flag state not confirm that it may sail under such
(FIRST QUARTER) (FIRST QUARTER)
condition, the ship may be detained.
ARGENTINA 237 93 142 48

BRAZIL 733 564 315 205

3.2.3. Should the ship not have a minimum manning
CHILE 79 53 55 27
document or an equivalent one, the Port state should
COLOMBIA 0 39 0 14
request the Flag state to specify the number of crew
CUBA 117 58 106 56
members required and their composition, and to issue a
ECUADOR 1 24 1 1
document in this respect as soon as possible.
PANAMA 35 14 12 8
Should the crew number and composition not comply
PERU 0 34 0 2
with the directions received from the Flag state, action
URUGUAY 37 14 19 8
should be taken pursuant to paragraph 3.2.2. Should the
TOTAL 1239 893 893 369
Flag state not answer the request, this should be construed
Source: Acuerdo Latin American Sobre Control de Burques pour el Estando
as a clear indication to conduct a more detailed survey of Rector del Puerto, Estadisticas 1996 and 1997

the ship. The ship may be authorised to sail only if it can do

it safely, taking into account the detainment criterium set out
in the Agreement.
The minimum rules to be applied should not be more
stringent than those applied to ships flying the flag of the
Port state. In case of lack of a minimum manning document
this should be reported as a deficiency.
3.3. Certification Controls
3.3.1. The general control of ship certification should be
made pursuant to the procedures set forth in Articles X and
REASONS AND PROCEDURES FOR MORE
DETAILED SURVEYS
If valid certificates or documents are not on board, or if there
are “clear grounds” to believe that the condition of a ship, its
equipment, its on board operational procedures and
compliance, or its crew does not substantially meet the
requirements of a relevant Convention, a more detailed
inspection will be carried out.

Regulation J/4 of the STCW Convention, 1978.

25
LATIN AMERICAN AGREEMENT
(ACUERDO DE VIÑA DEL MAR)

Clauses 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 provide that the inspectors shall ● Evidence of operational failures verified during Port State

consider “clear indications” for a more detailed survey to be Control procedures of ships, pursuant to SOLAS 74,

among others, the following: MARPOL 73/78 and STCW 78.

● A report or notification from another Maritime Authority; ● Evidence that the loading and other operations were not

made safely or according to IMO guidelines.

● A report or complaint from the Master of the ship, a

member of the crew or any other person or organisation ● Ship involvement in incidents arising from non-compliance

interested in maintaining the safety operations in the ship with operational requirements.

or in preventing marine pollution, unless the respective

● Ascertained evidence, during fire fighting drills and/or ship
Maritime Authority considers that the report or the
deserting drills, that the crew is not familiar with basic
complaint are evidently groundless;
procedures.

● Other signs of serious deficiencies (taking Annex 1 into

● Lack of an updated muster plan.
special account).

● Indications that it is impossible for the key members of the

● For the purpose of verifying compliance with operational
crew to communicate among themselves or with other
requirements on board, “clear indications” may be the
persons on board.
following:

Note, also, the general catch all at Clause 3.3.3, stating that

“none of the above provisions shall be construed as a limitation

to the Maritime Authorities’ power to take measures within

DETENTIONS their jurisdiction as regards any case connect to the pertinent

instruments.”
1
Argentina
0

18 SUSPENSION OF INSPECTION, DETENTION

Brazil
6
AND RECTIFICATION
8 When deficiencies are found during an inspection, the nature
Chile
3
of the deficiencies and the corresponding action taken are
Colombia DATA NOT AVAILABLE filled in on the inspection report.

54 Action which may be requested by the inspector can be

Cuba
28
found on the reverse side of Form B of the inspection report.

Ecuador DATA NOT AVAILABLE Clause 3.6 states that “each and every Maritime Authority

shall make efforts to ensure that deficiencies are corrected.”

3
Panama Clauses 3.7 and 3.8 set out the detention criteria. In the
4

case of deficiencies posing a clear risk to safety or the marine

Peru DATA NOT AVAILABLE
environment the inspectors have to ensure that the risk is
1 eliminated before authorising the ship to sail
Uruguay 1

“…and to such ends, it will take the necessary steps, which

Venezuela DATA NOT AVAILABLE
may include the ships detainment. However, should it not be
1996 (85) 1997 (First Quarter) (42) possible to remedy the defects at the survey port, the vessel

Source: Acuerdo Latin American Sobre Control de Burques may be authorised to sail to another port subject to any
pour el Estando Rector del Puerto Estadisticas, 1996 and 1997
adequate condition, stated by that Maritime Authority, so that

26
 INSPECTION/DETENTION INFORMATION
COMPARISON OF INSPECTIONS
DEFICIENCIES AND DETENTIONS 1995 – 1997
AND BLACKLISTING

In the case of deficiencies not fully rectified or only

1239 provisionally repaired, a message will be sent to the

competent Authority of the region state where the next

port of call of the ship is situated.

893 893

Each message must contain the following information:

647
DATA NOT AVAILABLE

504 1. Date

2. From (country)
297
3. Port
85
42 4. To (country)

5. Port
Inspections Deficiencies Detentions
6. A statement reading deficiencies to be rectified

7. Name of ship
1995 1996 1997 (First Quarter)
8. IMO identification number (if available)

Source: Acuerdo Latin American Sobre Control de Burques 9. Type of ship

pour el Estando Rector del Puerto, Estadisticas, 1996 and 1997
10. Flag of ship

11. Call sign

the vessel may continue its trip without posing an excessive 12. Gross tonnage

risk to safety or to the environment. In such cases, the 13. Year built

Maritime Authority shall notify the competent Maritime 14. Issuing authority of relevant certificate(s)

Authority of the region where the next port of call of the vessel 15. Date of departure

is located, the parties mentioned in paragraph 3.7 and any 16. Estimated place and time of arrival

other authority it may deem proper.” 17. Nature of deficiencies

18. Action taken

In accordance with Section 3.4 of Annex 1, when deciding
19. Suggested action
whether to detain, the inspectors are asked to consider:
20. Suggested action at next port of call

● Length and nature of the intended services or trip 21. Name and facsimile number of sender

● Whether or not deficiencies pose a risk for the ship, people In the event of detention, the Report from Inspectors is sent to:

on board or the marine environment

● Next port ● Owners

● Whether adequate rest periods for crew members can be ● Flag state, or its Consul ● Classification society

determined or not ● Other MOU

● Size and type of ship and its equipment

GENERAL PUBLICITY AND DISSEMINATION OF

● Characteristics of the cargo INSPECTION INFORMATION TO OTHER REGIONAL

GROUPS AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS

The absence of a deck officer or an engine room officer whose

certification be a requirement should not constitute a reason Arrangements have been made for the exchange of information

to justify the ship detainment, when this be in agreement with with other regional MOU’s, as well as the flag states and

any provisions accepted as an exception by the ship flag state. various international organisations such as the IMO and the ILO.

27
 PORT STATE CONTROL AND THE USA

U S A

HAWAII

VIRGIN IS. (US)

PUERTO RICA
NORTHERN MARIANA
ISLANDS

GUAM

AMERICAN
SAMOA

The information contained in this section is taken from the DEVELOPMENT

US Coast Guard’s web site and provides an overview of Port

Until 1994, boardings to ensure compliance with US
State Control within the territorial waters of the United States
regulations for tank ships, passenger ships, navigation safety
of America.
and pollution prevention constitued the US Coast Guard’s main
The USA is not a participating member of any of the
involvement with non-US ships and only in the most extreme
regional agreements currently in force, but it does take a pro-
or obvious cases did the Coast Guard intervene under the
active unilateral stance on the subject of the monitoring and
international Conventions (eg., SOLAS, MARPOL, Loadline) to
enforcement of international conventions and regards it as an
detain non-US ships.
increasingly important component in the policing and
However, in 1994, the US Congress recognised that there
enforcement of maritime regulations.
existed a number of substandard ships amongst the 8000

non-USA ships arriving in the USA every year and directed the
OUTLINE STRUCTURE
Coast Guard to develop a programme to eliminate them from

Since the Coast Guard’s Port State Control programme is the nation’s waters, and to submit annual reports on the status

largely non-regulatory, it is not generally reflected in the Code of this mandated programme which has come to be called the

of Federal Regulations. Instead, the programme is set out in Port State Control Programme.

the Coast Guard’s Marine Safety Manual (“the MSM”) which

contains seven chapters devoted to different aspects of the BASIC PRINCIPLES

Port State Control programme. These chapters deal with

● the general concept of foreign ship examinations
● procedures applicable to different types of ships
The USA Government maintains that the prime responsibility for
compliance with the requirements laid down in the international
maritime conventions lies with the shipowner/operator. It also
continues to maintain that the responsibility for ensuring such

● the procedures utilised to target foreign ships for boarding, compliance lies with the flag states, but the language contained in

for exercising control over foreign ships, and procedures to the various statements, papers etc issued by the USCG indicates

ensure accountability. that while Port State Control is seen as a safety net, it is to be

28
regarded as a proactive one and the USCG has recently begun to a. Flammable or combustible

demonstrate, both by statements and by action, that it intends to

b. Oil of any type or in any form, including petroleum, fuel
enforce international standards stringently.
oil, sludge, oil refuse and oil mixed with wastes, except

dredged spoil
JURISDICTION

c. Designated as a hazardous substance under Section

Foreign ships operating in US waters are subject to inspection
311(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA)
under Title 46 United State Code (USC) Chapter 33.
(33 USC 1321); or
Reciprocity is accorded to ships of countries that are parties

to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea d. Designated as hazardous materials under Section 104

(SOLAS)(46 USC 3303(a)). In addition, certain provisions of of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA)

the pollution prevention and navigation safety regulations (49 USC 1803)

(33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 154-156 and 164

● 46 USC 2101 (21) and 3304. Permission for US ships
respectively) apply to foreign ships operating in US waters.
transporting cargo to carry a limited number of individuals
As there is no Agreement or Memorandum specifically
without being considered a “passenger ship” for most
dedicated to Port State Control, there is no conclusive list of the
inspection purposes, and extension of this privilege to cargo
conventions enforced by the USCG under their Port State Control
ships of those nations that accord reciprocal treatment.
regime. However, it can be said that detentions and interventions

may be undertaken by the USCG under the authority of: ● 46 USC 2101 (33) and 3301 (7). Directs that safety

requirements of 46 USC Chapter 33 are applicable to

APPLICABLE DOMESTIC STATUTES
seagoing motor ships of 300 or more gross tons.
● 46 United States Code (USC) 5101-5116. Load line

requirements for foreign ships. ● 46 USC 2101 (35) and 3301 (8). Safety requirements for

foreign small passenger ships carrying more than six

● 46 USC 2101 (12) 3306(a)(5) and 49 USC 1801-1812.
passengers from a US port.
Safety requirements for carriage of dangerous articles and

substances aboard foreign ships. ● 50 USC 191. Requirements for security of ships, harbours

and waterfront facilities, and provision for control of the

● 46 USC 2101 (12) (21) and (35), 3504 and 3505.
movement of foreign ships in US waters by the local
Safety requirements for foreign ships carrying passengers
OCMI/COTP.
from any US port to any other place or country.

● 33 USC 1221-1232. Statutes for advance notice of arrival

● 46 USC 2101 (12), (21), (22) and (35), and Chapter 35.
and navigation safety regulations.
Inspection and certification requirements for all foreign

passenger ships which embark passengers at and carry APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

them from a US port. (These statutes are also relevant for Most US regulations applicable to US and foreign ships may

ships having valid SOLAS 74/78 Certificates or Canadian be found in Titles 33, 46 and 49 Code of Federal Regulations.

Certificates of Inspection, that must be examined to verify

APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
compliance with the flag administration’s safety verification
● International Convention on Load Lines 1966, as amended,
requirements.)
and its 1988 Protocol, (LOADLINES 66/88).

● 46 USC 2101 (12) and (39), 3301 (10) and Chapter 37.
● International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
Safety requirements that apply, with certain stipulations, to
(SOLAS), 1974, its Protocol of 1978, as amended, and the
all foreign ships regardless of tonnage, size, or manner of
Protocol of 1988, (SOLAS 74/78/88).
propulsion, whether or not carrying freight or passengers

for hire, that enter US navigable waters while carrying liquid ● International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution

bulk cargoes that are: from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978, as

amended (MARPOL 73/78).

29
PORT STATE CONTROL AND THE USA

● International Convention on Standards of Training, Booklets covering hull or machinery qualifications. In addition,

Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers 1978, as marine inspectors and/or boarding officers must have

amended (STCW 78). completed the appropriate Marine Safety Training &

Qualification Booklets for the type of ship being examined.

● Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing
Boarding teams conducting Priority I boardings, annual
Collisions at Sea 1972, as amended (COLREG 72).
freight, tanker and passenger ship examinations, biennial

● Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 Certificate of Compliance examinations and quarterly

(ILO Convention 147). passenger ship re-examinations must include a marine

inspector. At a minimum, such boarding teams should consist

● International Convention Relating to Intervention on the
of at least two Coast Guard members, at least one of whom
High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1975 and the
must be a qualified Port Safety Boarding Officer (E1), or a
Protocol relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases
qualified Assistant Marine Inspector (FA or FB).
of Marine Pollution by Substances other than Oil, 1983.
When conducting at-sea boardings in cooperation with Area

or Group commands outside of the Marine Safety Programme,

PORT STATE CONTROL EXAMINATIONS
boarding teams will be provided by the Marine Safety Office, or

Foreign ship examinations may be initiated by the USCG, jointly by the Captain of the Port and Marine Inspection Office.

requested by another flag state administration on the basis of However, operational commanders have the discretion to make

information regarding a potential substandard ship, or based up the boarding teams to meet operational situations,

on information regarding a substandard ship provided by a including the use of law enforcement qualified personnel, as

member or members of a ship’s crew, a professional body, an necessary, to ensure the safety of the boarding team.

association, a trade union or any other involved individual. The

USCG, on their website, go on to explain: SELECTING A SHIP FOR INSPECTION – THE

BOARDING PRIORITY MATRIX

“Port State Control examinations are not intended to be

analogous to an inspection for certification of a US flagged Until 1994, the USCG’s ship boarding programme was largely ad

vessel. Rather, they are intended to be of sufficient breadth and hoc, but they now have developed a Boarding Priority Matrix as

depth to satisfy a boarding team that a ship’s major systems part of their effort to systematically determine the probable risk

are in compliance with applicable international standards and posed by non-US ships calling at US ports. This Matrix is used to

domestic requirements, and that the crew possesses sufficient decide which ships Port State Control inspectors should board

proficiency to safely operate the vessel.” on any given day, in any given port. Ships are assessed in each

category and then summed for a total point score. This

The initial examination is designed to verify whether the
numerical score, along with other performance based factors,
required certificates are aboard and valid, and whether the
determines a ship’s boarding priority from Priority I through IV.
ship conforms to the conditions required for issuing the
In developing this points system, the US Coast Guard has
required certificates. This is accomplished by a walk through
identified five features which directly influence a ship’s
examination and visual assessment of a ship’s relevant
operational condition and compliance with international safety
components, certificates and documents, and may be
and environmental protection standards. These are,
accompanied by limited testing of systems and the crew. If this

examination reveals questionable equipment, systems, or crew 1. Flag states

incompetence, the boarding team may conduct further 2. Classification societies

operational tests and examinations. 3. Owner and Operators List

4. Ship Type, and

BOARDING TEAMS 5. History

Boarding teams usually consist of a marine inspector and one The first three are particularly significant and are dealt with as

or more boarding officers. As a minimum, a marine inspector explained below:

must have completed the Marine Safety Training & Qualification

30
FLAG STATES OWNER/OPERATOR LIST

● The flag list is composed of those flag states whose ● The US Coast Guard Headquarters Ship Compliance Division

detention ratios exceed the average detention ratios for all (G-MOC-21) compiles a list of owners and operators

flag states whose ships call at US ports. associated with ships that have had more than one ship

detained by the Coast Guard under the authority of an

● A flag state’s detention ratio is ascertained by dividing the
international Convention within the last twelve month period.
number of its ships which have been detained in the last
Any ship making a US port call that is owned or operated
three years by the total number of its ships which have
by a person or entity that has had that ship, or a different
called at US ports within the same period. For example, if
ship, subject to more than one intervention action within
a flag has had three of its ships detained during the last
the last twelve months is accorded high priority status.
three years, and a total of 60 of its ships have had US port

calls in the same period, the detention ratio would be: 3/60 ● The owners’ list is updated monthly and is published on

x 100% = 5%. The average detention ratio is ascertained the USCG website and sent to all Coast Guard Marine

by dividing the total number of detentions by the total Safety Offices.

number of arrivals for all flag states.

BOARDING PRIORITY MATRIX – PRIORITIES I-IV

● The flag list is updated annually on 1 April and remains in
AND EFFECTS THEREOF
effect for twelve months and is sent to all Coast Guard

Marine Safety Offices. The 1997 flag list is set out at page
The points are added up for a total point score and the ship’s
37. A flag state may be removed from the list when its
Boarding priority determined as follows:
detention average drops below the overall average flag

state detention average or when it is associated with less PRIORITY I SHIPS:

than two detentions within a twelve month period. ● 17 or more points on the Matrix, or

CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES ● ships involved in a marine casualty, or

● Beginning in 1998 this consists of a two-tier process

● USCG Captain of the Port determines a ship to be a
whereby any classification societies with less than ten
potential hazard to the port or the environment, or
arrivals in the previous year are eliminated from the process.
POINT SCORE SUMMARY
● Then, classification societies with more than ten distinct
OWNER LISTED OWNER
arrivals in the previous year are evaluated on their 5pts

performance over the previous two years. Their

FLAG LISTED FLAG STATE
performance is based on their detention ratio (number of 7pts

detentions divided by number of distinct arrivals). This ratio CLASS PRIORITY I (10 arrivals with detention ratio more than 4 times the average

is then compared to the average detention ratio (total OR <10 arrivals, but involved in a detention in the previous 2 years
5 POINTS (10 Arrivals with ratio between 3 & 4 times the average
number of detentions divided by the total number of
3 POINTS (10 arrivals with ratio between 2 & 3 times the average
distinct arrivals). Classification societies are then assigned 1 POINT (10 arrivals with ratio between average and twice the average
0 POINT (10 arrivals with ratio below average or <10 arrivals. 0 detentions
points according to where their detention ratios fall in
in the previous 2 years.
relation to the average detention ratio.
HISTORY INTERVENTION WITHIN 12 MONTHS 8 Pts Esa
Below the Average Detention Ratio = 0 points
OTHER OPER. CONTROL WITHIN 12 MONTHS 1PtEa
Between the average and 2 times the average = 1 point CASUALTY WITHIN 12 MONTHS 1 PtEa
NOT BOARDED WITHIN 6 MONTHS 1 PtEa
Between 2 times and 3 times the average = 3 points

Between 3 times and 4 times the average = 5 points SHIP TYPE OIL OR CHEMICAL TANKER 1 Pt
GAS CARRIER 1 Pts
More than 4 times the average = Priority 1
BULK FREIGHTER >10 YEARS 2 Pts
PASSENGER SHIP 1Pts
This list is sent to all Coast Guard Marine Safety offices and
CARRYING LOW VALUE COMMODITIES IN BULK 2 Pts
the 1997 Priority I classification list is set out at page 37.

31
PORT STATE CONTROL AND THE USA

● Ships whose classification society has ten or more arrivals SHIP INSPECTION PRINCIPLES

the previous year and a detention ratio more than four

In addition to the Boarding Priority Matrix the USCG has also
times the average, or
published the 12 “principles” employed as guidance for its

● Ships whose classification society has less than ten arrivals ship inspections. These are:

the previous year and have been associated with at least

one detention. ● Detentions are conducted only when a ship is unfit to

proceed to sea or poses a threat to the marine environment.

Port entry may be restricted until ship is examined by the

Coast Guard. Priority I ships are targeted for examination ● Voyage damage will not be associated with a classification

prior to entry into US ports. Where feasible, these ships society non-conformity unless other class-related

are boarded prior to port entry to ensure deficiencies are deficiencies are noted during the course of the survey.

corrected. Otherwise, they are boarded upon entry and prior

● Class non-conformities will only be associated with
to commencement of cargo transfer operations or passenger
equipment covered by a survey, conducted by class, or in
embarkation.
which class issued the certificate on behalf of the flag state.

PRIORITY II SHIPS:
● When multiple deficiencies are noted, only those
● 7 to 16 points on the Matrix, or
deficiencies serious enough to justify detention will be

● outstanding requirements from a previous boarding in this evaluated to determine class non-conformities.

or another US port, or the ship is overdue for an annual

● Outdated equipment, when the cause of an intervention,
tank or passenger exam.
will not be associated with a class non-conformity unless

Cargo operations may be restricted until ship is examined by the equipment was outdated at the time of the last survey

the Coast Guard. Priority II ships are targeted for boarding conducted by the class society on behalf of the flag state.

prior to commencement of cargo transfer operations or

● The absence of easily stolen equipment, such as fire hose
passenger embarkation. An exemption to the requirement
nozzles are extinguishers, will generally not be listed as a
for boarding prior to commencement of cargo transfer
class society non-conformity unless a large number are
operations or passenger embarkation may be granted if
missing and the inspection takes place within 90 days of
there are clear indications that the ship is in substantial
the last survey by the class society for the flag state.
compliance with applicable standards.

● Expired certificates will not be associated with a class non-

PRIORITY III SHIPS:
conformity unless the certificates were not endorsed or
● 4 to 6 points on the Matrix, or
were improperly issued by the class society when it

● alleged deficiencies reported, or conducted the last survey for the flag state.

● the ship is overdue for an annual freight examination. ● Interventions based on manning issues will not be listed as

class non-conformities.
Priority III ships may be targeted for boarding after entry

into port, but no operational restrictions are imposed. ● A time limit of 90 days will generally be placed on

associating non-conformities with equipment failures, such

PRIORITY IV SHIPS:
as non-operational fire pumps and emergency generators,
● 3 or fewer points on the Matrix.
unless it is apparent that the deficiency is long standing.

Priority IV ships are not targeted for boarding, but may

● Failure of human-factor-related testing – such as fire drills
be boarded and examined by the US Coast Guard at the
and abandon ship drills – will be associated with a
discretion of the local Captain of the Port or the Officer in
classification society non-conformity only when the class
Charge, Marine Inspection.
society issued the relevant certificate on behalf of the flag

State within 30 days of inspection.

32
● Serious wastage or other structural deficiencies not caused 11. International Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of

by voyage damage will be listed as a class society non- Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk

conformity. 12. Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Dangerous

Chemicals in Bulk
Note: The class society will be notified in writing in all cases of
13. International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate
society non-conformities.
International Pollution Prevention Certificate for the

Carriage of Noxious Liquid Substances in bulk

TYPE OF PORT STATE CONTROL EXAMINATIONS
14. International Load Line Certificate (1966)

USCG Port State Control examinations consist of annual 15. International Load Line Exemption Certificate

examinations, and then re-examinations or deficiency follow-up 16. Oil Record Book part 1 and II

examinations. These examinations may be broadened in scope 17. Cargo Record Book

or depth if clear grounds exist that lead a boarding team to 18. Minimum Safe Manning Document

believe that the condition of the ship or its equipment does 19. Crew Licenses or Certificate of Competency, Medical

not correspond with the certificates or the ship does not Certificates, of ILO Convention No. 73 concerning Medical

comply with applicable laws or conventions. Examination of Seafarers

21. Stability information

ANNUAL EXAMINATIONS

An annual examination consists of the specific procedures Areas/Items/Operations

outlined in the freight, tank, or passenger ship examination 1. Deck Portion 21. Equipment in Excess of

chapters of the Marine Safety Manual. It includes an 2. Hull Portion Convention or Flag state

examination of the ship’s certificates, licences and documents 3. Ballast Tank Entry Requirements

followed by a general examination, i.e. “walk through” of the 4. Load Lines 22. Garbage

ship to develop an impression of shell maintenance and the 5. Seaworthiness 23. Manuals and Instructions

general state of the deck and side shell of the ship to 6. Voyage Damage 24. Items to be Examined

determine its seaworthiness. It will also include examination 7. Machinery Spaces or Tested

and testing of specific equipment as well as the conduct of 8. Operation 25. Operational Tests

operational testing and emergency drills to ensure the crew’s 9. Maintenance 26. Muster List

proficiency at carrying out critical tasks. As a minimum, the 10. Tests and Trials 27. Communication

following items are part of each annual examination and are 11. Oil and Oil, Mixtures 28. Fire and Abandon Ship

taken from the MSM Volume 1, Chapter 19, which sets out the 12. Sufficient Power Drills

requirements listed below in greater detail: 13. Lifesaving Equipment 29. Damage Control Plan

14. Fire Safety Equipment 30. Bridge Operation

Certificates, Licences and Documents
15. Fire Doors 31. Cargo Operation
1. International Tonnage Certificate (1969)
16. Ventilation Systems 32. Loading, Unloading, and
2. Passenger Ship Safety Certificate
17. Escape Routes Cleaning Procedures for
3. Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate
18. Navigation Safety Cargo Spaces of Tankers
4. Cargo Ship Safety Equipment Certificate
19. Cargo Ship Safety 33. Dangerous Goods and
5. Cargo Ship Safety Radiotelegraphy Certificate
Construction Items Harmful Substances in
6. Cargo Ship Safety Radiotelephony Certificate
20. Cargo Ship Safety Radio Packaged Form
7. Cargo Ship Safety Radio Certificate
Operation
8. Exemption Certificates

9. International Certificate of Fitness for Carriage of LiquIfied RE-EXAMINATIONS

Gases in Bulk A re-examination is an examination to ensure that a ship

10. Certificate of Fitness for the Carriage of Liquified Gases remains in compliance with appropriate US laws or

in Bulk international conventions between annual examinations. As

33
PORT STATE CONTROL AND THE USA

with the annual examination, it usually consists of an SOLAS

examination of the ship’s certificates, licences and documents, ● Failure of proper operation of propulsion and other

and a general examination conducted by walking through the essential machinery as well as electrical installations

ship. Except aboard passenger ships, a re-examination will not

● Insufficient cleanliness of engine room; excess amount of
normally include operational testing or drills, but in the case of
oil-water mixture in the bilges; insulation of piping including
foreign passenger ship re-examinations, the re-examination will
exhaust pipes in engine room contaminated by oil; and
include the witnessing of fire and abandon ship drills to ensure
improper operation of bilge pumping arrangements.
that the ship’s crew can adequately ensure the safety of the

passengers in an emergency. ● Failure of the proper operation of emergency generator,

lighting, batteries and switches.

EXPANDED EXAMINATIONS

An expanded examination is a more detailed examination or ● Failure of the proper operation of the main and auxiliary

testing conducted when an annual examination, re- steering gear.

examination, or deficiency follow-up establishes “clear

● Absence, insufficient capacity, or serious deterioration of
grounds” for believing that the condition of a ship, its
personal lifesaving appliances, survival craft and launching
equipment, or crew are not in compliance with applicable US
arrangements.
laws or international conventions. Expanded examinations

focus on those areas where “clear grounds” have been ● Absence, noncompliance, or substantial deterioration to the

established and should not include other areas or systems extent that it can not comply with its intended use of fire

unless the general impressions or observations of the boarding detection system, fire alarms, fire fighting equipment, fixed

team support such examination. fire extinguishing installation, ventilation valves, fire

dampers and quick-closing devices.

DEFICIENCY FOLLOW-UP

A deficiency follow-up is an examination to ensure that previously ● Absence, substantial deterioration, or failure of proper

identified deficiencies have been corrected. A follow-up operation of the cargo deck area fire protection on tankers.

examination should be limited in scope to an examination of

● Absence, noncompliance, or serious deterioration of lights,
the specific items identified as deficiencies during a previous
shapes, or sound signals.
boarding. If more than 30 days have passed since deficiencies

were detected, or evidence of additional deficiencies is observed ● Absence, or failure of the proper operation, of the radio

during the boarding, a re-examination will be conducted. equipment for distress and safety communication.

● Absence, or failure of the proper operation of navigation

“CLEAR GROUNDS” FOR AN
equipment, taking the relevant provisions of SOLAS
EXPANDED EXAMINATION
Chapter V/12(0) into account.

To assist the boarding team, a list of deficiencies that establish

● Absence of navigation charts and/or all other relevant
“clear grounds” to expand an examination has been developed.
nautical publications necessary for the intended voyage,
The following deficiencies, grouped under the relevant
taking into account that electronic charts may be used as a
conventions and/or codes, are considered of such a serious
substitute for the charts.
nature that they may warrant the detention of the ship

involved. This list is not exhaustive. ● Absence of non-sparking exhaust ventilation for cargo

pump rooms (59.3.1).

GENERAL

Absent or invalid certificates required under applicable ● Serious noncompliance with procedures stipulated under

conventions. the Certified Safety Management System on ships required

to comply with SOLAS Chapter IX.

34
AREAS UNDER THE IBC CODE maintained at all stages and at varying conditions of the

● Transport of a substance not mentioned in the Certificate of voyage, and that the creation of any unacceptable stresses

Fitness of missing cargo information. in the ship’s structure is avoided.

● Missing or damaged high pressure safety devices. ● Absence, substantial deterioration, or defective closing

devices, hatch closing arrangements and watertight/

● Electrical installations not intrinsically safe or not
weathertight doors.
corresponding to the code requirements.

● Overloading.
● Sources of ignition in hazardous locations.

● Absent or improper draft and/or Load Line Marks.

● Contravention of special requirements.

AREAS UNDER MARPOL ANNEX I

● Exceeding of maximum allowable cargo quantity per tank.
● Absence, serious deterioration, or failure of proper

AREAS UNDER THE IGC CODE operation of the oily-water filtering equipment, the oil

● Transport of a substance not mentioned in the Certificate of discharge monitoring and control system, or the 15 ppm

Fitness or missing cargo information. alarm arrangements.

● Missing closing devices for accommodations or service ● Remaining capacity of slop and/or sludge tank insufficient

spaces. for the intended voyage.

● Bulkhead not gastight. ● Oil record book not available.

● Defective air locks. ● Unauthorised discharge bypass fitted.

● Missing or defective quick closing valves. AREAS UNDER MARPOL ANNEX II

● Absence of Procedures and Arrangements Manual.

● Electrical installations not intrinsically safe or not

corresponding to the code requirements. ● Cargo not categorised.

● Ventilators in cargo area not operable. ● No cargo record book available.

● Pressure alarms for cargo tanks not operable. ● Transport of oil-like substances without satisfying the

requirements or without an appropriately amended

● Gas detection plant and/or toxic gas detection plant
certificate.
defective.

● Unauthorised discharge bypass fitted.

● Transport of substances to be inhibited without valid

inhibitor certificate. AREAS UNDER STCW

● Number, composition, or certification of crew not

AREAS UNDER ICLL
corresponding with Safe Manning Document.
● Significant areas of damage or corrosion, or pitting of

plating and associated stiffening, in decks and hull affecting AREAS UNDER ILO 147

seaworthiness or strength to take local loads. However, this ● Insufficient food for voyage to next port.

is waived if authorised temporary repairs for a voyage to a

● Insufficient potable water for voyage to next port.
port for permanent repairs have been carried out.

● Excessively unsanitary conditions on board.

● A recognised case of insufficient stability.

● No heating in accommodation of a ship operating in areas

● The absence of sufficient and reliable information in an
where temperatures may be excessively low.
approved form, which by rapid and simple means, enables

the master to arrange for the loading and ballasting of the For further details on the above points, consult MSM Volume 1,

ship in such a way that a safe margin of stability is Chapter 19 at the USCG web site.

35
PORT STATE CONTROL AND THE USA

DEFINITIONS AND TERMS OF REFERENCE the crew or other persons responsible for a ship. Control may

APPLICABLE TO THE US COAST GUARD PORT take several forms including requiring corrective action prior to

STATE CONTROL PROGRAMME returning to the US, requiring a ship to proceed elsewhere for

repairs, denying entry into port, or detaining a ship in port.

The following definitions are some of those employed by the

USCG in the implementation of its Port State Control Deficiency. A condition found not to be in compliance with the

Programme and are taken from the MSM Volume I, chapter 19. conditions of the relevant convention, law and regulation.

Clear Grounds. Evidence that the ship, its equipment, or its Detention. A control action which restricts a ship’s right of free

crew do not correspond substantially to the requirements of movement. The imposition of a restriction on the movement of

the relevant conventions or that the master or crew members a ship constitutes a detention regardless of whether or not a

are not familiar with essential shipboard procedures relating to delay from a ship’s normal or expected itinerary occurs.

the safety of ships or the prevention of pollution. Detentions may be carried out under the authority of SOLAS

1974 as amended, Regulation 19, ICLL Article 21; MARPOL

Contravention. An act, procedure, or occurrence that is not in
Article 5; STCW Article X and Regulation 1/4; ILO 147 Article
accordance with a convention or other mandatory instrument,
4; the Ports and Waterways Safety Act; or a US Customs hold.
or its operational annex.

Examination. The process of assessing a ship’s compliance

Control. The process of imposing a port state’s or flag state’s
with the relevant provisions of applicable international
authority over a ship to ensure that its structure, equipment,
conventions, domestic laws and regulations. The scope of an
operation and crew meet applicable standards. The process is
examination shall be to the extent necessary to verify the
effected by any verbal or written directives of the Officer in
validity of the relevant certificates and other documents, and
Charge Marine Inspection (OCMI) or Captain of the Port (COTP)
to ensure no unsafe conditions exist. An examination may
or their representatives which requires action or compliance by
include, but is not limited to, checks of documents, certificates,

manuals, the ship’s structural integrity, machinery, navigation,

PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
pollution prevention, engineering and safety systems,

maintenance programmes and crew proficiency.

1995 1996
CLASSIFICATION SOCIETY
DETENTION DETENTION AVERAGE %
DETENTION RATIO
RATIO % RATIO % Intervention. A control action taken by a port state in order

to bring a foreign flag ship into compliance with applicable

DET NORSKE VERITAS 0.53 1.34 0.94
international convention standards. Interventions are
AMERICAN BUREAU OF SHIPPING 1.81 0.52 1.19

LLOYD’S REGISTER OF SHIPPING 1.48 1.35 1.42

undertaken by a port state when a ship’s flag state has not,

NIPPON KAIJI KYOKAI 1.77 1.30 1.53 can not, or will not exercise its obligations under an

REGISTRO ITALIANO NAVALE 2.87 1.37 2.11 international convention to which it is a party. This may include

KOREAN REGISTER OF SHIPPING 2.23 2.72 2.48 requesting appropriate information, requiring the immediate or

BUREAU VERITAS 2.91 2.08 2.50 future rectification of deficiencies, detaining the ship, or
GERMANISCHER LLOYD 3.44 1.97 2.70 allowing the ship to proceed to another port for repairs.
BULGARSKI KORABEN REGISTER 0.00 7.14 3.70
Nonconforming Ship. Any ship failing to comply with one or
POLSKI REJESTR STATKOW 5.12 4.71 4.91
more applicable requirements of US law or international
CHINA CLASSIFICATION SOCIETY 3.75 7.32 5.56

CHINA CORPORATION REGISTER OF SHIPPING 7.14 7.41 7.27

conventions is a nonconforming ship. A nonconforming ship is

CROATIAN REGISTER OF SHIPPING 9.52 5.88 7.89 not necessarily a substandard ship unless the discrepancies

MARITIME REGISTER OF SHIPPING 7.09 9.65 8.33 endanger the ship, persons on board, or present an

HELLENIC REGISTER OF SHIPPING 28.57 26.67 27.59 unreasonable risk to the marine environment.
ROMANIAN REGISTER OF SHIPPING 31.81 54.55 39.39
Substandard Ship. In general, a ship is regarded as substandard
Source: USGC Web site (July 1997)
if the hull, machinery, or equipment, such as lifesaving, firefighting

36
and pollution prevention, are substantially below the standards
TARGET CLASSIFICATION SOCIETY LIST FOR 1997
required by US laws or international conventions, owing to:
There were 16 classification societies with at least ten distinct arrivals in 1996. The average detention
ratio over the period 1995-1996 is 2.12%. Ships classed by the following classification societies have
a. The absence of required principal equipment or
been assigned Priority I status:
arrangement;
CTM Inspection and Classification Co. S de RL
b. Gross noncompliance of equipment or arrangement with
Hellenic Register of Shipping
required specifications;
Honduras Bureau of Shipping
c. Substantial deterioration of the ship structure or its
Honduras International Naval Surveying and Inspection Bureau
essential equipment;

d. Noncompliance with applicable operational and/or manning International Naval Surveys Bureau

standards; or International Register of Shipping

e. Clear lack of appropriate certification, or demonstrated MERT

lack of competence on the part of the crew. Monserrat Shipping S de RL

Panama Bureau of Shipping

If these evident factors as a whole or individually endanger the

ship, persons on board, or present an unreasonable risk to the Panama Maritime Documentation Service

marine environment, the ship should be regarded as a Panama Register Corporation

substandard ship. Panama Shipping Register

Romanian Naval Register

Valid Certificates. A certificate that has been issued directly
Romanian Register of Shipping
by a contracting government or party to a convention, or on

the behalf of the government or party by a recognised Source: USCG Web site (July 1997)

organisation, and contains accurate and effective dates, meets

APPEALS PROCEDURE
the provisions of the relevant convention, and corresponds to
A detention decision may be appealed under the provisions of
the particulars of the ship and its equipment.
Title 46, Code of Federal regulations (CFR), Park 1.03-20 of

Title 33, CFR, Part 160.7. The appeal must be in writing within
INTERVENTIONS AND DETENTION
30 days after the decision is made or action is taken, and

Interventions of the USCG may involve should give reasons as to why the decision or action should be

set aside or revised. It should be addressed to the Coast

● allowing the ship to sail with the deficiency uncorrected
Guard officer in command where the decision was made or
(e.g., a warning),
action was taken, generally the Officer in Charge, Marine

● corrective action prior to returning to a US port Inspection (OCMI), Captain of the Port (COTP), or Commanding

Officer, Marine Safety Office (CO, MSO).

● allowing the ship to proceed to a specific port for repairs
If the initial appeal is unsuccessful, a formal appeal may be

● denying port entry made to the District Commander. A further formal appeal may

be made to Coast Guard Headquarters.

● detaining the ship in port until deficiencies are corrected.
Note: While a request for reconsideration or a formal appeal
Detention is the severest form of intervention and it is to be
is pending, the original decision or action remains in effect,
noted that detention (regardless of duration or effect on the
unless specifically stayed the District Commander or
ship’s schedule) will adversely affect the points assigned to the
Headquarters.
ship under Boarding Priority Matrix (see later comments). As

points accumulate, the likelihood of future boarding rises. As DETENTIONS – DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION

the likelihood of future boarding rises, so to does the possibility If a USCG inspector takes an intervention action against a ship,

of still more deficiencies being discovered, thereby creating a the flag state must be notified of all the circumstances, as

downward spiral. well as to the classification society and the International

37
PORT STATE CONTROL AND THE USA

TARGETED FLAG STATES 1997

66.10%

46.03%
40.00%
35.71%
29.93%
27.27%

14.29% 15.67%
14.63% 11.11%
10.53% 10.09% 10.73% 10.42%
8.89% 8.16%
Average 5.68% 7.16% 5.68%
Detention
5.63%
a

da
Ba ua

lize

ina

or

ia

it

ia

co

lta

nia

ne

t
eri

yp

en
pru

ura

ke
tvi

ssi
wa
Ind

an
d

roc
& ntig

rai
Ma
rbu

Ch

a
Alg

Be

c
Eg
ua

Tur
La

Ru
Ku

hu

om
nd

Vin
Cy

Uk
Mo
Ec
A

Lit
Ho

*R

St
Source: USGC Web Site (July 1997) * Added to target list in 1997

Maritime Organisation (IMO). If the ship is allowed to depart TARGET FLAG STATE LIST FOR 1997

without all identified deficiencies being corrected, the USCG

The above flag states had a detention ratio that was above
must also notify the authorities of the next port of call of the
the overall average of 5.42% and had more than one
uncorrected deficiencies.
detention in 1996.
The Ship Compliance Division produces a List of Ships

Detained. Under the authority of Titles 14, 33, and 46, United

States Code.

This List of Ships Detained includes the ship name, IMO

number, date of detention, ship type, port, flag, classification

society and deficiency summary. The list is subject to change

without notice based on appeals made by the owner, operator,

and/or classification society.

GENERAL PUBLICITY AND INFORMATION

There is a lot of helpful information as to the criteria employed

by the USCG published by the United States Coast Guard and

available on the internet at:

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/psc/psc.htm

The US Coast Guard Headquarters’ Port State Control Branch

may be reached at the following address:

Commandant (G-MOC-2)

US Coast Guard

2100 Second Street S.W

Washington DC 20593-0001

38
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Our grateful thanks are extended to the following organisations 12. Accident and Loss Prevention at Sea, the Nautical Institute.

who provided us with detail and commentary, including a

International Conference and Workshops, November 1993.
review of the completed text.

13. Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas. Report of Lord Donaldson’s

Secretariat, Paris Memorandum of Understanding, Wilem
Inquiry into the Prevention of Pollution from Merchant
Wilzenplein 6, PO Box 2094. The Hague, The Netherlands.
Shipping 1994.

Secretariat, Asia-Pacific Memorandum of Understanding,

14. Lord Donaldson’s Assessment (Derbyshire). A report by
Tokyo MOU Secretariat, Tomoecho 6th Floor, Annex Bldg 3-
the Right Honourable Lord Donaldson of Lymington to the
8-26 Toranomon, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan 105.
Secretary of State for Transport to assess what further

Secretariat del Acuerdo de Viña del Mar, Prefectura Naval work should be undertaken to identify the cause of the

Argentina, AV.E Madero 235, P Baja, Buenos Aires, Argentina. sinking of the MV Derbyshire, London HMSO 1995.

US Coast Guard, US Coast Guard Headquarters, US Port 15. Port State Control – CDI inspections in chemical tanker

State Control Program, Washington D.C. trade, Mike Corkill, Lloyd’s List, 1997.

16. Port State Control: Study by Ship Inspectors, Richard

The author wishes to acknowledge the help of Thomas Miller’s
Pilley, UK Club.
Business Intelligence Centre in researching this manual.

Principal books and articles referred to are as follows: 17. Port State Control – Legal Issues – Clifford Chance.

1. Paris Memorandum of Understanding and related annexes. 18. Port State Control – ISF Report on ILO conventions

November 1996.
2. EC Directive 95/21/EC June 1995, official journal of the

European Communities. 19. Present Position and Theme of PSC, Mr M Okada, Tokyo

MOU Secretariat.
3. Paris MOU, Annual Report and Accounts 1996/7.

20. Brussels to Drive Out Unsafe Ships, Julian Bray, Oslo,

4. Asia-Pacific Memorandum of Understanding (Tokyo MOU)
Lloyd’s List, June 1997.
and related annexes.

21. Getting Shipshape – Changes to the International Regime –

5. Annual Report on Port State Control in the Asia-Pacific
Derek Hodgson – Clyde & Co.
Region, 1996 Tokyo MOU Secretariat.

22. Flag, Coastal and Port State Control – Closing the net on
6. Latin American Agreement on Port State Control of Vessels,
unseaworthy ships and their unscrupulous owners, John
(Viña Del Mar Agreement) 1992, as amended, and annexes.
Shore, Sea Changes 1994.

7. Acuerdo Latino Americano sobre Control de Burges pur

23. Implementation: the MOU intentions as regards ISM
el Estato Rector del Puerto, 1996 and 1997 statistics as
Inspections, Stephen Chapman, Baltic Magazine 1997.
published by Secretaria del Acuerdo Centro del

Informacion – ciala. 24. Implementation – State approach varies from port to port –

Tradewinds 1997.
8. United States’ Coast Guard – web site – various, but in

particular Marine Safety Manual, Volume 1, chapters 19-23. 25. Port State Control: Who is guarding the guards? –

Lloyd’s List September 1997.

9. Haight Gardner Holland & Knight, Port State Control as

practised by the US Coast Guard. 26. Ships of Shame: Enquiry into ship safety. Report from

the House of Representatives Standing Committee on

10. Port State Control, Mr Koskorides 1982.
Transport, Communications and Infrastructure –

11. Guidance Manual for the Assessment of Tanker Structures. Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia 1992.

Institute Chamber Shipping/Oil Companies International

Maritime Forum.

39
THE UNITED KINGDOM MUTUAL STEAM SHIP ASSURANCE ASSOCIATION (BERMUDA) LIMITED

Managers Thomas Miller (Americas) Inc. Hong Kong

Thos. R. Miller & Son (Bermuda) Thomas Miller (New Jersey) Transport Services Asia Limited

Windsor Place, 18 Queen Street 15 Exchange Place 16/F, Centre Point

PO Box HM665 Suite 1020 181-185 Gloucester Road

Hamilton HMCX Jersey City Wanchai

Bermuda NJ 07302-3912 Hong Kong

Telephone: +1 441 292 4724 Telephone: +1 201 557 7300 Telephone: +852 2832 9301

Fax: +1 441 292 3694 Fax: +1 201 946 0167 Fax: +852 2574 5062

Thomas Miller (Miami) Inc.

Managers’ Agents Greece
7205 North West

Thomas Miller P&I Ltd. 19th Street Thomas Miller (Hellas) Limited

International House Suite 300 PO Box 80071

26 Creechurch Lane Miami, Florida 5th Floor, 117 Notara Str.

London EC3A 5BA 33126-1223 Piraeus 18535

Telephone: +44 171 283 4646 Telephone: +1 305 715 9820 Telephone: +30 1 4287420

Fax: +44 171 283 5614 Fax: +1 305 715 9097 Fax: +30 1 4281122

and Thomas Miller (San Francisco) Inc.

Australia
1 California Street
Thomas Miller P&I Ltd.
Suite 1910 Transport Mutual Services Pty Ltd.
3 Colima Avenue
San Francisco, CA Suite 304, 37-49 Pitt Street
North Hylton, Sunderland
94111-5401 Sydney NSW 2000
Tyne & Wear SR5 3XB
Telephone: +1 415 956 6537 Postal Address: PO Box R199
Telephone: +44 191 516 0937
Fax: +1 415 956 0685 Royal Exchange, Sydney NSW 2000
Fax: +44 191 548 1851
Telephone: +61 2 92520911

Fax: +61 2 92520922